KEY POINTS:
Hugging the centre line has kept Helen Clark in the top job for eight years, so it's probably a vain hope to expect her to suddenly let her hair down and go for broke.
But if ever she could have got away with it, the new anti-tagging laws
was that time. Instead we get a cautious ban on sales of paint spray cans to under-18s, a maximum fine of $2000 for the tagger and $1500 for the retailer who fails to comply.
If she was fearful of a negative reaction, she needn't have been. The only outright opposition was from the odd anonymous tagger and the president of the Council of Civil Liberties, Michael Bott, who made a twit of himself by saying the legislation was election year pandering to the rednecks.
Well if making life harder for taggers qualifies one for redneck status, then count me in, and, I suspect, 4 million or more other New Zealanders.
I suspect not many Kiwis would join Mr Bott on the ramparts fighting for the right of every free man to bear a spray can of paint.
If any group might have been opposed to it, other than the vandals, it would be the retailers, but no, Retailers Association spokesman Barry Hellberg commended the legislation saying the fines for errant shopkeepers were fair enough.
The big flaw is linking the crime to age. The Government legislation was sparked off by Manukau City's proposed bill seeking to ban sales of spray cans to under-18s within that city's boundaries. Helen Clark, in announcing the Government's plans, correctly noted that Manukau's bill was flawed because it left the door open for determined taggers to pop across the city boundary to Papakura and shop there instead.
Her bill has a similar flaw. It enables the older brother or mate to buy a can on the younger vandals' behalf. It also assumes that on the stroke of turning 18, the boy-tagger suddenly metamorphoses into a responsible, law-abiding citizen.
Let's just keep it simple. Ban paint spray cans. The Weekend Herald tried to list legitimate uses for this device and, it seems, struggled. Respraying a bike and a gilt picture frame, and touching up a fridge and a BMW was the answer. Against the millions of dollars local councils spend each year cleaning up the tags, I say, for the sake of the community, let the legitimate few use a paint brush instead.
Last year, the Victorian state government introduced legislation with fines of around $30,000 and jail terms of two years. There's also a ban on carrying spray can nears public transport without legitimate reason, and on sales to those under 18.
The problem is, in neighbouring New South Wales where the annual clean-up bill is estimated to be $100 million, the limited, age-linked ban has not worked.
In September, NSW Attorney-General John Hatzistergos launched an urgent review into why the existing anti-graffiti measures similar to those proposed by Helen Clark were failing. He said a ban on spray cans may be the only answer.
If the partial ban is not working across the Tasman, then why are we planning to take the same failed path here. For the hobbyists who will be disadvantaged by a ban, the suggestion no doubt sucks. But communities restrict all sorts of activities and devices for the common good. Hand-guns, for example.
We seem poised to ban fireworks for the common good, even though most of us manage to let them off without maiming ourselves and our nearest and dearest. Still, there's growing acceptance that a minority cannot be trusted.
A poll in November last year had 63 per cent of people agreeing on a fireworks ban. The Prime Minister said cases like that of a 1-year-old who was burned when a firework exploded in her pram were distressing. "At some point, public tolerance for this will boil right over."
Opposition leader John Key said he believed a ban was inevitable.
I suspect tolerance for spray cans has already boiled over. If Helen Clark is too timid to hear the message, then Mr Key could always take the lead when the bill reaches Parliament.
