Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill

Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) Link to this

I move, That the Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. This bill takes important action to address New Zealand’s graffiti vandalism problem by strengthening the legal framework for graffiti-related offences.

The bill amends the Summary Offences Act 1981 by creating specific offences of tagging, graffiti vandalism, and defacing; creating a specific offence for possession of graffiti implements in circumstances where it can be reasonably assumed that they are intended to be used to commit a graffiti offence; prohibiting the sale of spray-cans to under-18-year-olds; and restricting access to spray-cans in stores so that the public cannot access them without the assistance of a shop employee. The penalties for committing the graffiti vandalism offence are a $2,000 fine or a community-based sentence, or both.

Graffiti and tagging are highly visible forms of vandalism that the community will want quickly addressed. The bill’s option of community-based sentences, whereby offenders clean up the damage they have caused to themselves and to the community, is therefore likely to be seen by the community as an appropriate and effective penalty for many offenders. The bill does not require retailers to implement expensive, sophisticated security measures to prevent spray-can theft. They must simply ensure that spray-cans are not accessible in shops without the help of employees. Retailers will not be left alone to deal with the requirements of this bill. Support will be available in the form of compliance information and recommended store signage to enable them to comply with the new provisions.

Labour recognises that this legislation alone is not enough to combat the serious problem of tagging and graffiti in our country. That is why the Government has agreed to the core components of the nationwide Stop Tagging Our Place (STOP) strategy, which will empower communities and territorial local authorities to act. The strategy, which is due to be considered by the Government by the end of July, will include a range of legislative, strategic, and operational components to address graffiti vandalism nationwide. This bill represents the strategy’s legislative component only. Under the STOP strategy, the Government has also committed $6 million over 3 years to communities and territorial local authorities to establish new, or enhance existing, anti-tagging and anti-graffiti activities. These activities may include education, prevention, diversion of offenders, improvements to enforcement and prosecutions, and more effective sentencing.

No specific agency has been given responsibility for enforcing the bill’s provisions. A key feature of effectively enforcing the bill is keeping enforcement responsibility as flexible as possible. It is important that police or territorial local authorities can enforce any part of the bill, while having primary responsibility for enforcing certain parts of it. This flexibility will enable local prioritisation, and collaboration and alignment of enforcement between the police, territorial local authorities, and any other Government agency that may wish to enforce the bill’s provisions. Operationally, the Minister expects that the police will be the primary enforcement body for the graffiti vandalism offence. It is expected that spray-can sales and restriction measures will largely be enforced by territorial local authorities, with support from police where necessary. This aspect of the bill fits more appropriately with the regulatory functions of territorial local authorities, and it provides a mechanism for them to contribute to the prevention of an offence of which they are often victims.

Tagging and graffiti vandalism are not simply a nuisance activity. They are an invasion of private and public property that is often intimidating and antisocial. The majority of graffiti and tagging in our communities cannot be considered simply as art. It is often mindless scrawl that causes great financial and emotional costs, which the perpetrators seem to care nothing about. Graffiti vandalism is not committed only by bored individuals. It often has links to gangs seeking to mark their territory, and to other forms of juvenile delinquency that form the basis of future, more serious offending. By making it more difficult for young people to obtain spray-cans, and by creating the specific offences of graffiti vandalism and possession of graffiti implements, our bill attempts to stem the flow of young people into more serious offending.

This bill and the STOP strategy, which sits behind it, acknowledge the pain suffered by decent citizens of our country, throughout our communities, who are subjected to this type of crime. Over the course of this bill the Law and Order Committee and the House have heard anecdotes that show that tagging and graffiti are serious issues for our communities. The Minister, the Hon Annette King, thanks all the submitters for their valuable contributions to the formation of this bill. She also acknowledges the time and expertise of officials and members of the House, especially the members of the exceptional Law and Order Committee, who have worked hard to bring this legislation to fruition. On behalf of the Hon Annette King, I commend this bill to the House for its third reading this afternoon.

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) Link to this

It is my pleasure to rise on behalf of the National Party to support the Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill.

The first duty of any Government is to protects its citizens, and although graffiti will not of itself kill people, it certainly does help to create an environment in which people think they do not have to respect other people’s rights, other people’s property, or other people’s lives. We have seen in the last week or so some pretty appalling headlines as a result of some of the activities in South Auckland. They are not headlines that I—or any other member of Parliament who represents a South Auckland electorate—want to see ever again. We have had a crime wave that has resulted in deaths of innocent people, and people have been living in fear. Headlines such as: “Fear on streets of Manukau” are not the sorts of headlines we want to see ever again.

I have some information for the House about why this bill is important. We know that this bill will not stop graffiti. We know that. We know that graffiti vandalism is already an offence under the existing law. So why are we doing this? Well, partly it is because we actually need to show some leadership in this community, and the leadership of a country needs to set an example. If we continue down a track of treating graffiti vandalism as though it is a minor issue, as though it is some form of resistance artwork—as the Children’s Commissioner described it—as though we will take it as some sort of rite of passage, then we will continue to see a breakdown of law and order and of the rule of law in our country.

Anybody who wishes to travel by train in Auckland from Papakura, in my electorate, through to Auckland City will be greeted by a mass of graffiti. All the way along the track line every building is absolutely smothered in it—just like the Los Angeles - style gang graffiti. That is because we now have—in South Auckland in particular, and in other parts of the country as well—a Los Angeles - style street-gang culture, which has emerged over the last decade or so. I can tell this House that I have seen youth gangs—or street gangs as I should refer to them, because many of their members are in their 30s—recruiting outside our high schools. I have seen that happening. I have seen them strolling along the streets with their particular colours, and I have seen the fear that they engender in the eyes of dairy owners and others who have to deal with them. I have had these property and business owners come into my electorate office in Papakura and tell me about the stand-over tactics that occur. I have talked to the police about it; I have been to see them. They have been to see me, and we have been to see the victims. But it is all really a bit late by then, because by that stage the culture and the climate have been set.

Until we start to take small crime seriously, we can expect big crime to come from that. I know that generally nobody is killed by graffiti itself, but I certainly know that when we look at street-gang killers, we see that every single one of them has started off in the culture of the Los Angeles - style street gangs. In fact, they have started off with graffiti, handbag snatching—all those sorts of things that we used to call reasonably petty crime—graduating their way up the scale until they move on to murder, the manufacture of P, and all those sorts of violent and awful offences.

We have to send a message to New Zealand that we do not indulge in that sort of behaviour. We have to send a message to our police that we will support them when they have to make tough decisions. We have to send a message to our police that we will not always judge them with the benefit of hindsight, because that is what we tend to do in this country. It is all very well being an expert on what the police should have done or should not have done, until one is in the situation of having one’s life endangered. It is all very well expecting the police to be all soft and cuddly and caring at all stages, when they have to deal with some pretty difficult characters who are not soft and caring in any circumstance.

We have to back our police; we have to get tough. It is not, of course, just about our getting tough with laws; it is about allowing the police to have the power to actually do the job for us. The police these days are not necessarily confronting the same risks that they confronted 30 years ago. There was then no such thing—that we knew of, anyway—as methamphetamine use. We did not know about this thing called P. We did not, in fact, have Los Angeles - style gangs.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) Link to this

I want to start by talking about Manukau City, which led the way for legislation on graffiti. It would also be most appropriate for me to take this opportunity to wish the Mayor of Manukau City, Len Brown, all the best with his health. He is going through difficult times, a bit like Manukau itself over recent years.

Manukau had its own local bill, but today’s bill—the Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill—is far better, because it covers the whole of New Zealand. I listened to the first two speeches, from Darren Hughes and Judith Collins, and I agree with them. I have been in this Parliament 18 years, and in that time I have seen the problem of graffiti get worse and worse. But in South Auckland we are a special breed. We have got together and sorted out the problem, so to speak. I think there is a lot of value in the MMP style of Parliament when one is dealing with legislation such as this. We can go and talk to Opposition members and to members from other parties, although we do not always convince them.

What is particular about this bill is that many people in New Zealand think that, as a result, all of a sudden graffiti will disappear overnight. The reality is that it will not disappear overnight, but this is a way of showing New Zealanders that we do not appreciate people painting on someone’s house or fence. We have to say as a Parliament that that is not right. Quite often we blame the police when there are social problems such as graffiti. Why do the police not catch these characters? Why do the police not round them up? Well, we have the best police in New Zealand in my electorate of Manurewa. I want people to know that Inspector Alan Shearer and the men and women who work for him do a splendid job, and that sometimes other things—worse crimes—take their minds off graffiti.

Parliament is actually sending a message to people about respect for one another, and respect for one another’s property. Elderly people who have had their house painted on do not have the ability to grab a paint brush and a can of paint, and paint out the graffiti. They worry, they panic, and they feel unsafe. Well, Parliament is now saying that we will not have any more of that. We will support the councils. Some excellent councils have worked on this issue. Obviously, Manukau City Council has been at the forefront, but so have Waitakere City Council, Auckland City Council, and especially one small council very close to home called Papakura District Council. Papakura’s mayor goes out at night and talks to the kids, from 11-year-olds upwards, who are out there. He will feel far more empowered when he knows that Parliament is right behind him.

This Government has listened to the people and it is acting. I am pleased that so many other members of Parliament will support this bill. Some think that graffiti is art. Well, in a former life, I was the head of an art department of a secondary school in South Auckland and I can tell the House that painting on people’s fences and spraying slogans and signs to show that one belongs to a gang is not art. People display gang-type behaviour and go around spraying like an old tom-cat, with devastating consequences. The TV media show people doing graffiti art—that sends out the wrong message. People on the radio talk about graffiti being an art form—that is the wrong message. The clear message from this Government is that graffiti is not acceptable. We are giving councils more power and the community more power, and I think that is really important.

There are some really good people in every community. In Manurewa, most people are superb. We have a lot of graffiti, but it is not all performed by locals. People travel a long way to graffiti. We also have people like the Rev. Mark Beale, who runs the beautification programme. He spends hours working with people, many of whom have been unemployed, getting rid of graffiti. Manukau City spends a million dollars a year doing that. It would not be proper for me not to mention also the work done by the previous mayor, Sir Barry Curtis, and by the present mayor, Len Brown.

When we have a bill that is a part of an overall strategy—as Labour has—we start to make progress. We start to make people think they can have their neighbourhoods back. We start to make people believe they can feel confident. When we look at this issue we realise that we are supporting not only our community but also our young people. Just imagine being a young person and, because of peer pressure, having to go out with one’s mates in winter and graffiti. We saw the tragic consequence of that recently where a resident was charged with the murder of a graffiti artist. I do not want to talk about that too much, because the case is before the courts, but it shows the frustration felt. Many people have come to me to say they really support this legislation.

I am pleased to speak about this issue. I was quite chuffed when the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill was passed by the House, but I am even happier today, because the Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill is for all of New Zealand. It never hurts to be the first one to say something—others then realise that what is being said is important. That is one of the really great things about this particular Parliament. People talk to each other, and sometimes we manage to work together to solve community problems. It is really important in Parliament that we talk to each other, instead of “at” each other. When we can do that, we can get results. I am very pleased to support the third reading of the Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill.

PANSY WONG (National) Link to this

It is a pleasure to follow the previous two speakers: my colleague Judith Collins, but, particularly, the Hon George Hawkins. I think those two deserve credit, because without them we would not be able to pass this Government bill—the Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Bill—in Parliament today. Two years ago George Hawkins brought a bill to Parliament that had been started off by the Manukau City Council because it saw that graffiti was causing real problems. Graffiti is a sign of a society and the local community tolerating or normalising behaviour that can be very intimidating.

This past week has been very tough in South Auckland. I went past Riverton Liquor Store, where Navtej Singh was brutally killed for a few bottles of beer. I realised that the menacing graffiti on the walls and shop windows of that block of shops has an intimidating and menacing impact on ordinary residents who live around there. Many of them have been interviewed by media from various sources, and they talk of living in fear and of getting used to it. Today Parliament, at long last, is taking a small step towards sending a message to offenders that this behaviour will not be tolerated.

As I have said, 2 years ago the arrogant Labour Government unfortunately treated one of its own members, the Hon George Hawkins, with arrogance.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First) Link to this

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Tēnā hoki tātou. 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.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) Link to this

Tēnā koe. Tēnā tātou katoa e te Whare. First of all, let me extend a formal apology to Claudette Hauiti of Front of the Box Productions, and say that my sincere wish is that we can work together on projects in the future.

Let me begin my speech today with the words I used when I spoke on this bill the last time it came up: “I do not mind saying right up front that I am not a fan of tagging … not today, not yesterday, not tomorrow. It is ugly, it is offensive, it makes one’s town look like crap. People do not want to stop in those towns, because they see the existence of tagging as a clear mark of the existence of crime. I personally do not mind some of that cool looking stuff like they did for Sir Edmund Hillary, but I do not like ugly tagging.” But just because I recognise that reality does not mean that I have to agree with some of the garbage spoken on this issue by others in this House.

Yesterday, a certain female member of the National Party made a complete ass of herself by trying to link the murders in South Auckland with tagging and gang membership, and by suggesting that stopping tagging would stop people joining gangs, which would, in turn, stop people getting murdered. Well, I do not mean to sound rude, but that is rubbish, and I will tell members why. A lot of the kids who tag are the same kids who can be found scribbling in class. They scribble in class because they have been shunted to the back of the class by an education system geared towards suspending and expelling black kids from school faster than anyone else. They scribble in class because they are hōhā with schools that do not give a stuff about their future and because they are angry that their teachers do not care about them, either. Tagging ain’t a step to murder, and anyone who says it is is a blind and lazy fool.

Tagging is the result of the growing frustration amongst youth with a society concerned more about profit than about people. Tagging is what we get from kids who do not think that anyone cares. Tagging is what we get when our rangatahi want to get attention and the world ain’t interested. Tagging is the reaction of the poor to alienation, anger, boredom, frustration, and low self-esteem. We will reduce tagging by reducing the factors that lead to it: poverty, poverty, and poverty. The last time the House discussed this issue, someone said that poverty was not the problem. Well, all I have to say to that is that members should open their eyes and take a look around. They should look in all the rich suburbs. Do those kids tag out their towns? No, not even. Members should then take a swing through the poor part of town, and what would they see? Tagging, tagging, and tagging. This ain’t rocket science, folks; this is as obvious as the blinkers that some politicians seem to have over one eye. Ramping up the penalties will hurt the ones who get caught. But if we want to stop tagging, we need to put an end to poverty.

I do not disagree with the decision to fine people $1,500 for selling spray-cans to teenagers. But in the same way that we cannot stop 13-year-olds from smoking cigarettes by passing a law to make it illegal to sell cigarettes to kids under 18, we will not stop tagging by increasing the penalty for people who sell spray-cans to teenagers. I also point out a couple of other facts. Firstly, tagging is already illegal, and, secondly, we already have laws in place to deal with property crime. Increasing the penalties may make us feel as though we are doing something, but in fact we ain’t. Poor places will still be tagged, and rich places will not. That will continue until we start to address the root causes of poverty, and do not just sting the poor dumb clucks who sell spray-cans and tag fences.

To digress ever so slightly, I would like to congratulate all of the schools—wharekura, kura Māori, Māori boarding schools, and secondary schools—for making this week so very, very special for all of the Māori members of Parliament by sending down all of those dynamite groups for the 2008 National Secondary Schools Kapa Haka competitions over the road at the TSB Bank Arena. More than 1,500 dynamic, talented, explosive performers from all around the country have taken the stage to strut their stuff and show off how good they all are at poi, haka, waiata, mau taiaha, and whaikōrero. Thirty-six of the best teams from throughout Aotearoa have given their all for their kura, their whānau, their hapū, their iwi, and their communities. They have lit up the hall with their confidence, their passion, and their panache, and they have been simply electrifying in their exuberance and their energy. There have been 3 days of power, intensity, and vigour. I thank all of those rangatahi for the energy they have given to all of us Māori MPs. I thank all of the seriously stressed-out teachers and parents who have been trying to keep tabs on 1,500 sets of rampaging hormones, I thank the judges for their patience, and I even thank Parliamentary Service for politely pointing all the hundreds of stray Māori in the right direction in order to catch up with their MP, or with somebody else’s MP if they could not find their own.

I might be so rude as to ask where on earth the rest of Parliament has been while all this has been going on. It is one thing to slag off our kids when something goes wrong, but it is even better when we applaud them when things are going well. That says we care about making a positive statement about our kids’ future, it says we recognise the strides that the great majority of them are making to excel in a darkening world, it says we care enough to honour them for their efforts, and it says we care about them. But this I know: 80 percent of the Pākehā MPs in this House did not even bother to walk across the road to take a look. So to all my fellow Pākehā MPs let me just say that they should not be surprised that nobody cares about what they think is important, when they show by their own absence that they do not care about what others think is important.

So, yes, tagging is a crime against property, and, yes, tagging sucks. But as Derek Fox, the Māori Party candidate for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, said to me recently, poverty sucks too. Poverty is an even greater crime than tagging, because poverty is a crime against humanity. Poverty is a crime against society. When we see the Child Poverty Action Group suing the Government for denying 150,000 children an entitlement granted to other children, we all know which one of the two crimes should have priority. If this bill at least recognised the widening gulf between the haves and have-nots, which exacerbates problems like tagging, and offered solutions based on that, we would support the bill. But it does not do so. It is punitive, and it simply affirms the desperation of the poor and the refusal of this House to recognise their plight.

Discussion of crime is often grim and tinged with blame and finger-pointing, but every now and then we get a message that puts a whole new perspective on things. Here is an email we have had that we would like to share with the House, from a guy called Rob Beckett: “Hell. I’m going to rely on the younger generation to care for me when I’m frail and old. Maybe I need to take more notice of them now and listen to their issues and be prepared to make changes before its too late. What can I do? Hey, join the real world and ask the kids what they want and look to long term solutions. Together, we can achieve.”

In the same way that we grieve for those who have been killed recently in South Auckland, so too do we grieve for the young man killed a few months back for simply tagging. None of those deaths were necessary, but what is necessary is that we in this House step forward with realistic options to deal with the causes of crime, rather than hope to simply garner votes by just attacking crime.

In closing, I acknowledge Pita Paraone’s comments about me and my mum. Whenever she tells me to jump, I am more than happy to say “How high, Mum?”. Kia ora tātou.

NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) Link to this

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.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) Link to this

As the last speaker from the Opposition in this debate on the Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill, I need to make a number of points.

People do take seriously the content of the speeches made by previous speakers, including Hone Harawira and Nandor Tanczos. However, that does not detract from this legislation. To think that passing this legislation, which in effect will be unable to stop graffiti, is superfluous or meaningless is as ridiculous as it is to think that we can stop poverty by legislation. In actual fact, it is just as ridiculous to argue that because people support this legislation, they do not care about the causes of poverty, and could not recognise them if they jumped up and bit them on the nether regions. The fact that legislation is being made in this way does not prevent the creation of policy and legislation that will address the very real matters that were raised by those previous speakers.

It was interesting to note that Mr Harawira, to underline his point, spoke about where graffiti does and does not occur, because I had notes along the same lines to underline my points. The fact is that, right across the board, where offending occurs it generally occurs within the offenders’ own neighbourhood. If we look at where most violent offences occur, where most dishonesty offences occur, and where most antisocial offences occur, we see that they occur amongst the peers of those who are creating the offending.

I think we should take stock, too, of the argument that graffiti is a means of self-expression or an art form. The likeness between graffiti and dogs urinating to mark out their patch has been referred to by several speakers. Calling graffiti self-expression is a misnomer, because usually the graffiti expresses only the fact that a certain person has been at a certain place in the neighbourhood. So there is a pretty strong correlation between leaving a signature and peeing on a lamp post. Graffiti also frequently includes the initials or insignia of local gangs—sprayed not necessarily by gang members but by people who look up to them, aspire to be them, or want to use their marks. Swear words are also often used to decorate bus stops, walls, fences, trees, etc. So when we look at the purpose of graffiti and the reasons behind it, we see that it obviously is not driven by any form of self-expression, because it does not leave anything behind that expresses anything, other than an expletive or, as I said earlier, the fact that someone has been there.

When we look at the neighbourhoods and the locations where graffiti happens, we see that it happens in places where people are least able to afford to remedy the graffiti by painting it out or replacing the surface. It also occurs in areas where people are least likely to take the message—if there is a message. If, for instance, someone sprays on the side of a fence “Mongrel Mob” or “Black Power”, or draws a fist or a bulldog, the people in that neighbourhood will say “So what?”. If it is supposed to denote that the area is the turf of a particular gang, the people most likely to read the graffiti know that it is—or is not, depending on the circumstances. Graffiti is most likely to be sprayed in areas where people are least likely to care and least likely to respond.

A common theme in all of this is that the solution to offending of any kind, whether it be violent, antisocial, or destructive, is education. That point is being made right across the House. Just because the answer is education does not mean there is no place for legislation such as this, because what are we supposed to do in the meantime? It is all very well to say we can enact legislation, we can remove, or mitigate, or lessen poverty, we can enhance education, or we can enhance self-esteem by putting in educational policies that teach the sorts of things that have been applauded this afternoon—poi, kapahaka, karakia, waiata and all the rest of it, which are terrific. Regardless of what Mr Harawira says, every one of us, black or white, applauds those activities and looks forward to living within a culture where those things are enhanced, those things are blessed, and those things are valued. In fact, after every visit to a kōhanga reo or kura kaupapa I am left feeling completely embarrassed by my lack of ability to reciprocate in te reo beyond a few words or a few sentences. I aspire to the day when I can do so fully and meaningfully.

But I come back to the point: what do we do in the meantime? We need a punitive measure that at least acts as a deterrent, because there is an awfully long lag time before we educate people out of doing these things, which tend to arise out of where they come from. The fact is a number of young people who are involved in graffiti lack a history of seeing things put right. When we look around the neighbourhoods where graffiti is prevalent, we see that other things are prevalent too. There is an abandonment of a sense of responsibility around, for instance, looking after property, whether it be as simple as mowing lawns, or removing old cars, or cleaning up an empty section, or replacing a broken window. We know that all of those things require a bit of money, and in those neighbourhoods frequently money is not thick on the ground. And as we have learnt and heard a number of times in this House over the last few days, there is an abundance of places where money can be wasted at the expense of nourishing children and family values.

I remember hearing a school psychologist talk about a family whose septic tank had broken. It was a mucky job and all sorts of muck was left over the lawn. Dad had to go out and dig a hole, get bits from Plumbing World, and fix the hole in the pipe, in order to get the septic tank working properly. Everyone in the household could see that that was what happened. In the same way, when a window breaks someone gets a bit of glass, removes the putty, puts the glass in, and fixes the window. Fixing things teaches young people about taking responsibility. Leaving things broken and in a state of degradation only underlines the fact that those people are valueless and can be left to live in a valueless world. I accept that we need to encourage policy that addresses poverty and addresses all the underlying issues that lead people towards offending. But nobody drags them along by the nose and forces them to offend; they offend in response to those underlying issues. We can address those underlying issues in time, but that does not take away from the imperative for us in this House to take responsibility for things that are broken—in this case, a society that lends itself to the production of graffiti. I am proud that National is prepared to support this bill.