Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill

I move, That the Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill be now read a second time. I want at the start to thank the Local Government and Environment Committee for the hearing that it gave this bill and the suggestions it has made for the House to adopt, all of which I, as sponsor of the bill, concur with. I will go to those at the end. I am not going to breach Standing Orders by acknowledging the Mayor of Lower Hutt, who is in the gallery today, because if I did, then it would. Therefore I will not. But Ray Wallace, when he was campaigning for the mayoralty and when elected mayor, declared war on graffiti in Lower Hutt, and has had a coherent approach with a team for rapid action in private areas where graffiti is visible and where access is approved by the owners, and, in public areas, for rapid response, often the first day that it is reported. But also there is a coherent programme of art for kids and other things in order to move some of the real talent on to positive work.

The main aim of this bill is to empower the city to remove graffiti that is on private property where the owner cannot be found or identified in order to give consent or, for that matter, to decline. I do want to make it clear that if owners do not want graffiti removed, then it will not be removed. What this does is fill a gap in the law, which was the cause of quite a number of eyesores in Lower Hutt—and actually around the country as well—where there are, effectively, absentee owners, people who have semi-abandoned properties where they pay the rates, maybe, or pay them very late, but they are completely out of contact. Some of these are Kiwis who have shifted offshore, but in New Zealand more and more there are cases of overseas companies owning small commercial areas where maybe they have not made a good investment, and, as a result of that, there is an inability to make contact with them.

It is my view that having a lot of graffiti around and a lot of tagging in a community is a signal of a lack of social cohesion. It gives a perception of danger, it does reduce property values for owners who are nearby, and it has a detrimental effect on the image of a city and often, therefore, on its well-being. Under the Summary Offences Act 1981, if people are caught in the act, there is some deterrence in there, but it does not give the ability to clean up graffiti on private property unless there can be good contact with the owner.

The Local Government and Environment Committee heard a range of submissions—not a large number but a range of submissions; most of those, I think, made useful suggestions—and has recommended some changes to the bill. The first of those changes is to clarify the purpose statement to state that the purpose of the bill is “to allow the removal from private property of graffiti that is visible from a public place.” So if the graffiti is inside or it is around the back, it is not the role of the council—it is not wider—to remove it. It is what is visible from a public place.

There is a definition of graffiti, and I want to thank Holly Walker for the work that she did in that area. It is a definition that essentially picks up the definition consistent with the Summary Offences Act 1981. Another amendment requires a council to state on the graffiti removal notice the power relied on, so that people know which section of the legislation is being used, and requires the person removing the graffiti to take a copy of that notice, and also to have adequate identification with them when they are removing the graffiti. On the vast majority of occasions—the way that this works in the Hutt—it is a contractor who is doing that work, and it is not seen as a problem for all of those staff to carry identification, because my understanding is that they do anyway.

Probably the biggest change that the select committee made was that in the bill as introduced there was a protection from civil liability, from civil proceedings arising out of actions conducted in good faith, even if there was not reasonable care. That has been removed and the select committee decided that it was appropriate to rely on the general provisions of the law, but also acted on the briefings of the council that it is its requirement on its contractors to carry public liability insurance. That public liability insurance is already being carried, so there is not an additional cost as a result of this change. What it does is put people who are implementing this new legislation on the same basis as other people who are doing graffiti removal, whether or not they are council employees or contractors, as are used in the Hutt.

I would like to finish where I started and that is to congratulate the Hutt City Mayor, Ray Wallace, on this initiative, and to say that I am proud to be the local member for Lower Hutt, and I want to thank the select committee and the House for their good work on this bill.

I rise to support this Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill. I have to say that I think it is a good, practical, straightforward local bill brought to us in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard. The Local Government and Environment Committee canvassed the issues widely. We made a few amendments and some minor tweaks, and we are now returning the bill to the House.

As we have heard from the Hon Trevor Mallard, the bill empowers the Hutt City Council to enter private land within its district, and to take action to remove graffiti from a building that is in public view. We have already heard that it is not about stuff that is round the corner; it is about graffiti that is there in the community and makes people feel as if the community is being neglected. This council does have a significant problem with graffiti, but it also has very good processes to deal with it. It works very cooperatively with property owners and people who are in the community, and they are generally supportive. It has a very good rapid graffiti removal process, and I think that it is something that other councils might need to look at. However, there is an issue with some property owners, and often these property owners may be absentee landlords who do not respond to the council’s requests to gain access to remove graffiti. This bill will solve that problem.

There were seven submissions on the bill. The majority of them supported the bill, and there were some suggestions and some concerns. Actually, the main concern was the lack of a definition of graffiti. There were submitters, and even members of the select committee, who wanted to be sure that there was a clear distinction between art and graffiti. We are very aware that there is a whole new genre of graffiti art, and we wanted to make sure that some inspired artwork, perhaps by young people in the Hutt, was not destroyed by mistake by people who were thinking they were cleaning up.

We made three major amendments. The first was the insertion of a definition of graffiti. We chose a definition that was consistent with section 11A of the Summary Offences Act 1981. In this case it identifies “graffiti” as something that damages or defaces “any building, structure, road, tree, property, or other thing by writing, drawing, painting, spraying, etching, or otherwise marking it”. The definition has two provisos: that the work is done “(a) without lawful authority; and (b) without the consent of the occupier or the owner …”.

Submitters were also concerned that owners and occupiers needed to know under what authority the councils were operating, so we made an amendment that required the council to state on its graffiti removal notice the source of the power relied upon, which, of course, is this bill. We also wanted to make sure that the council’s workers, when they are cleaning up the graffiti, are easily identified, so clause 7 requires council operators to take a copy of the notice that they have served, and to carry identification when removing graffiti. As the Hon Trevor Mallard has stated, this is quite simple, it is already part of their processes, and the operators seem to be working well in the community.

Finally, there was clause 8, which sought to protect the council from civil proceedings arising out of actions done in good faith, but without reasonable care. As I have said, we have heard about the successful graffiti eradication programme, and the fact that the Hutt City Council was spending up to $500,000 a year to keep its city free of graffiti. We also heard that it had a very experienced operator who did an excellent job and was particularly good at matching the colours of the paintwork. That sounds like a trivial thing, but if you have ever been involved with cleaning off graffiti, the matching of colours is particularly important. However, the select committee still felt that the council should not be exempt from taking reasonable care when removing graffiti from the buildings, so we deleted clause 8 so that the council had the same responsibility that we would expect of others. I believe that the council was happy with that decision.

Overall, I think this is a good bill and I think it will serve the Hutt City Council well. In fact, I think there may be demand from other councils to have similar legislation. Finally, I would like to thank the staff of the Local Government and Environment Committee, and all the members who worked hard on this bill. I would like to thank our advisers, and I would like to congratulate the Hutt City Council on bringing this bill to the House. I think it is a job well done.

I join the two previous speakers, Trevor Mallard and Nicky Wagner, in supporting this Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill, brought to the House by the Hon Trevor Mallard, a very good local member who works hard in his constituency. I would like to congratulate the Mayor of Hutt City, Ray Wallace, whom I would never mention is here to witness this today. The work that was done by Mayor Ray Wallace and his council is to be applauded.

I would like to also thank the Local Government and Environment Committee. This was one of those bills that went through the select committee very well chaired by Nicky Wagner, who gave good opportunity for people to make submissions and for there to be input on what was seen to be a very sensible piece of legislation for a local community.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Put her on Finance and Expenditure.

Hon ANNETTE KING: Perhaps Nicky Wagner would like to chair the Finance and Expenditure Committee. She has got a very good way about her. I would have to say that I would like to see this bill extended across many councils throughout New Zealand. I hope it does become a Government bill. Perhaps Trevor Mallard, as a new Minister in the next Labour Government in 2½ years’ time, might like to take this issue up, to become part of Government legislation.

I have to say that I was highly annoyed when I went out of my house last week and found, on my dark green garage, a piece of tagging. There was absolutely nothing artistic about this tagging on my garage, at all. So I say to Nicky Wagner that there is a difference between something that looks appealing and attractive, or even acceptable, and somebody’s ridiculous scrawl over your garage. The worst thing about it is that you do not necessarily have any of that paint left to paint it out.

I think this bill is a very good move for local authorities. This move is because they had a particular problem out in the Hutt. In fact, Lower Hutt is on a par with one of the worst areas for tagging in New Zealand. The worst tagging is tagging that is not removed from private property. Businesses are very keen to get it off their businesses. Most residents are keen to get it off their fences, but there will always be some private residents who do not actually live in the area or who do not get around to cleaning it up, and what it does to a community, I think, is give a message, somehow or other, that people do not care about their community and that they do not have pride in it. And, as Trevor Mallard said, it can make the place look as if it is unsafe. So removing graffiti from private property as soon as possible is very important, particularly if the private resident does not get around to doing it.

We looked at this bill, and actually there were not a lot of changes made to the original bill. One of the things that we did do was clarify the purpose statement to state that the purpose is to allow the removal from private property of graffiti that is visible from a public place, and could not be any wider. This is not about a grab by local authority to invade people’s private property and slap its paint on other people’s property; it is very much narrowed to the removal of graffiti on private property that is visible from a public place.

There was some concern at the initial stage that maybe councils might misuse this power. We also said that we require the council to state on the graffiti removal notice the power that it is relying on. We also require the person removing the graffiti to take a copy of that notice and to carry adequate identification with them when removing the graffiti, because it is important that the right people do the job and that they have got the right authorisation.

These were some of the minor things that we actually did correct in the bill itself, but, overall, it is a very good bill. It is supported by members of this House. You know, sometimes the public out there think that we spend all our time battling with each other over legislation and issues. There are times when we come together on an issue and we agree. I think there would be very few people around the country who would disagree that graffiti is unwanted in our community. If we can do something to remove it as quickly as possible, then it is good for all of us. Of course, those who tag your property would like to see it there as long as possible. It is kind of like showing off, only it is showing off at the expense of innocent people who do not deserve it.

Congratulations to the Hutt City Council on this bill. We support it, and I hope that it can be looked at for other councils in New Zealand.

I want to make just a brief contribution to support the colleagues who have previously spoken on both sides of the House for this Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill. It is a good, pragmatic piece of legislation in that the processes that this council is currently required to go through to clean up graffiti makes it impractical, too difficult, and an additional cost for ratepayers. Effectively, what the bill is doing is enabling that to be cleaned up more effectively.

You could take a very pure, private property perspective that says that there is a really high threshold for allowing people to go on to a person’s private land and to add paint or do other work. That is, effectively, the basis for the pretty strong protections that exist in the current law for council officials going on to property to clean up graffiti. What is so pragmatic, and, in my view, necessary about this bill is that graffiti actually collectively makes our communities worse. We all know that communities that are covered in graffiti get an overall atmosphere of lawlessness that actually drags down communities. That is where I join with others in congratulating the Hutt City Council on the work it has done in this area.

I also think that by removing the graffiti as quickly as possible, you detract from the satisfaction of the vandals of seeing their artwork, signature, symbol, or whatever you want to call it being displayed for longer. It is true that those communities that get rid of the graffiti quickly have less of it, and that is a further reason why we should support this bill. My hope, as one of those who believes in strong disincentives for those who get some perverse satisfaction from graffiti, is that the Hutt City Council might gang up with the police and with the courts with some of those that are caught, and actually have them scrubbing off and doing some of the painting to remove the graffiti. I suspect that they will have to do that only a couple of times to realise what elbow-exhausting work it is and will then be a bit more respectful of both public and private property.

The last point I want to make is that I suspect that this is a bill that, if successfully implemented in Hutt City, is something that we will want to apply across the rest of the country. Yes, this issue of graffiti is a particular issue. There are actually surveys that show that, sadly, Hutt City is more adversely affected by graffiti than many other communities, but actually it is a problem throughout New Zealand. I am hopeful that Hutt City is able to show that this is an effective new tool for councils to be able to quickly remove graffiti and that, further down the track, Parliament could look at applying this law more broadly.

It is a good bill. I commend the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee and Trevor Mallard, the sponsor of the bill. We should put it into law. We should give the Hutt City Council these powers. Let us see how it goes, and be open-minded about extending it nationwide.

I am very pleased to be able to take a call to speak in the second reading of this Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill. This is a bill—a fairly unassuming piece of legislation—that will always hold a very special place in my heart. That is because it was the first piece of legislation that I ever rose to speak about in this House, back in the first reading debate at the beginning of this year. It seems particularly fitting, as someone who was born and raised in Lower Hutt and lives there still, that it is a Hutt City Council piece of legislation that has this particular honour for me.

I want to congratulate the Hutt City Council on its ongoing efforts in swiftly dealing with vandalism in our city, and also to congratulate it on at the same time channelling the energy and creativity of many of our city’s talented young people into positive street art projects, like the mural of Tana Umaga and Piri Weepu in Wainuiōmata. I think this council has shown a real willingness to support and empower young artists, and a positive, identity-building support of street art that improves our city, and I hope that that support will continue long into the future.

But this bill is not about graffiti art or street art. It is about vandalism, and particularly tagging, which does have a tendency to proliferate on buildings in the Hutt Valley that are abandoned and unoccupied. We have already heard that the Hutt Valley has a particularly high rate of graffiti vandalism compared with other parts of the country. Where this occurs in public spaces the council already has a current and very successful and rapid response to this, with an excellent response and removal programme that has proved very effective for removing tagging from public property.

Rapid removal is important in this context, because we know that the more tagging and vandalism that exists on a building, fence, or wall, the more of that it is likely to attract. For an example, I need look no further than around the corner from my own home in Pētone, to the site of the former Pētone College, or, even before that, Pētone Technical College. It is very sad to see the state of that once thriving school site, which is now abandoned. It is covered in tagging, its windows are smashed, and it was, of course, recently the site of a major arson. In that particular case, I guess the only solace we can take is that that site is soon to be redeveloped into a retirement village, although I have long wished that it could once again be used for educational purposes. But that site, which I certainly would not feel safe entering, is an example of why rapid removal is very important, because as tagging and vandalism proliferates, people begin to feel unsafe. Many residents in the Hutt Valley have identified graffiti as an area of concern that does make them feel unsafe. We know that it can discourage people from engaging actively in their community, so a rapid response is important.

The problem is that tagging and vandalism in the Hutt Valley are often a particular issue on abandoned or unoccupied private properties, and in those cases the council does not have the legal ability to enter those premises to remove it. It certainly has the willingness and the capacity, but it does not have the legal right, and that is what this bill seeks to address.

It should be noted that it is not the intention of the bill that the council should be able to enter private property and remove graffiti that the property owner consciously wishes to remain there. In fact, owners in that situation will be able to respond within 10 working days to the notices issued by the council to say “Thanks, but no thanks; I want to leave that particular piece of art there.” The council and its contractors will take no action if that is the case. That is an important provision for respecting the rights of property owners, and I was pleased to see that provision extended from 10 days to 10 working days, to really make sure that owners have had a chance to exercise that right if they wish to.

This is further reinforced by another very important amendment that the Local Government and Environment Committee has made, and that is to insert a definition of graffiti into the bill. This was something that I first raised with the mayor and with Trevor Mallard, the sponsor of the bill. In fact, I first raised it before I was even elected as an MP—which just goes to show you how keen I am about local issues in the Hutt Valley—because I was concerned that a lack of definition really meant that we were not making good law. Good lawmaking should include clear definitions of its terms, so I am pleased to see that that definition quoted by Nicky Wagner from the Summary Offences Act has been inserted into the bill by the committee. There are two important qualities of that definition. It talks about graffiti as being only that which is there without legal authority, or without the consent of the property owner. Authorised street art, whether it is authorised in public spaces or authorised by the owner of the property, is not included in the definition of graffiti in this bill, and that is very important.

I was also concerned about the provision that would have exempted the council and its contractors from civil liability, if they accidentally damaged the property while on the premises to remove graffiti. That is especially important, because it is important to acknowledge that this bill does allow the council to enter property without the knowledge, potentially, of the owner. If they have not responded to the notice within 10 working days, the council may enter the property. So I was pleased to see that the select committee saw fit to remove that exemption from civil liability. We did hear that the contractor who does this work actually has public liability insurance already, so they would not actually need this provision in order to be able to safely carry out their work. But also this provision did create some concern, and some concern was expressed by submitters about the potential for damage caused by contractors. So I am pleased to see that that has gone, and that the council is happy with that.

Last time the House considered a graffiti removal bill, which was the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill, the Green Party opposed it. We did that partly because of concerns about a similar civil liability clause, as well as the wider Draconian provisions of that bill. So I am very pleased to see that a more reasonable, consensus-based approach has been taken to this bill, both by the council and by the select committee. I would like to say, however, that our support of this particular bill and its local ramifications for the Hutt Valley, where I am from, does not necessarily guarantee that we would support similar bills in other jurisdictions in future. We would have to consider those on their merits, and on a case by case basis.

I would like to conclude by congratulating Mayor Ray Wallace and his council and thanking them for both their proactive efforts to remove graffiti, but also their efforts to channel the positivity and the creativity of youth in the Hutt Valley into street art and graffiti art projects. I would like to congratulate Trevor Mallard, my colleague in the Hutt South electorate, on bringing this bill to the House, I thank the select committee for working very constructively on this bill, and, of course, I thank those who took the time to make public submissions. I commend the bill to the House.

I stand in support of this bill, the Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill. I think the reason it has got widespread support across this House is that everyone in this House acknowledges that when communities look bad, they feel bad, and that we do need to take some action to make sure that our communities are looking as good as they can. So I do want to congratulate the Hutt City Council and Mayor Ray Wallace, and also my Wellington colleague Trevor Mallard, on bringing this bill to the House. It does give the Hutt City Council the right to remove graffiti from private property. This is an issue that is not just, as many members have already mentioned, particular to Lower Hutt. It is also an issue in specific parts of my electorate of Mana.

I do acknowledge that although this bill gives the Hutt City Council the ability to crack down further on graffiti, we do need to acknowledge the work that is already being done to eradicate graffiti—the work that is being done by our local bodies and also by our police to crack down on those people who think it is wise and fun to go out and tag public and private property. I agree with my other Wellington colleague the Hon Annette King that there is an element of “cats spraying their territory” to tagging, and the sooner that we can take down graffiti from public places, the sooner that we can crack down on these people. I am not sure whether they are all necessarily young, but most would be young, and that behaviour may lead on to a higher level of offending. In that respect it is making communities feel much, much safer.

I want to acknowledge that Trevor Mallard in his first reading speech said that this, if it is a success, could be extended out beyond the Hutt City Council area. As the member for Mana I have had conversations with Porirua City Council officers and also councillors and the mayor, and they would be very keen for these powers to be extended to them if indeed the Hutt City Council graffiti experience with this bill is a successful one.

I also want to acknowledge the work that the Porirua City Council is doing. Holly Walker spoke earlier about rapid removal of graffiti, and the Porirua City Council is certainly on top of that. But it also looks to implement positive things in the community, such as murals, which have also been mentioned in this debate already, to ensure that there is a good look and a good feel about a community, therefore bringing the spirits of the community up. As Trevor Mallard spoke of before, it does also have an effect on property prices.

I think we all in this House have been victims of graffiti, usually about every 3 years. When election time comes around we are victims of graffiti. I put a hoarding up on my house, and 45 minutes later someone had got to it. I went inside the house, and there you go! Someone had managed—

Hon Trevor Mallard: But in my case it’s always an improvement.

KRIS FAAFOI: Yes, that is right. Trevor Mallard is still using his photo from 1995, I believe—

Hon Trevor Mallard: 1987.

KRIS FAAFOI: From 1987, sorry. So there is a fair bit of airbrushing that needs to go on. I should not talk for too long in that respect.

As I said, this bill is something that could be broadened out, and I would welcome the opportunity for this to be stretched out to the Porirua City Council. As I have mentioned, we would certainly welcome that—I, as a local electorate MP, and the local body representatives.

I do want to thank the Local Government and Environment Committee. It has made what Trevor Mallard has said are some practical changes to the bill. I note the fact that we are making much more explicit in the bill what graffiti is, and also that we have to have a much more explicit system around notification for those people who are private property owners, and whom we are going to contact, within the provisions of this bill. We are also making sure that the officers within the council have to identify themselves explicitly. I think those are all practical measures in the bill that have come through the select committee stage and are fitting.

As I say, I think that the three local bodies in my electorate—the Wellington City Council, the Porirua City Council, and the Kāpiti Coast District Council—would all welcome being given these powers if the Hutt City Council experience is a successful one. There are some property owners within the Mana electorate who have defied requests from the council to try to get on to their properties to remove a significant amount of graffiti. Although this bill does not compel them to remove that graffiti, it does give the local body another option to try to remove the eyesore from the public view.

In terms of making sure we crack down on that “looks bad, feels bad” factor, I think this is a positive thing, and I think the acknowledgment from across the House that this is a positive thing means that we can all stand here within this Parliament today and support this move by the Hutt City Council and my Wellington colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard.

National supports this bill, the Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill. A number of speakers have noted today—and throughout the course of the Local Government and Environment Committee consideration and also in the first reading debate—that graffiti on private property within public view has a negative impact on anybody who sees it, whether or not you are a visitor to the particular town or neighbourhood. You see the graffiti day after day after day and you just go: “Ugh!”. It has a negative impact.

We saw recently up in Counties-Manukau a really good example of how graffiti can do huge damage to a neighbourhood, but then, subsequent to that—once it has been dealt with and had a bit of community input as well—how it can have a really beneficial impact on a community. The Law and Order Committee did a visit to Counties-Manukau. We went to a neighbourhood that comprised a liquor store, a dairy, and a takeaway store, and not only was the whole little block of shops covered in graffiti upon graffiti upon graffiti, but also it was dirty, there was rubbish all around, and the grass was growing. It was not a good place for the community—there were houses all around—and we were told by the community constables that children going to get something after school, or going on an errand for mum to the dairy, were prone to be stood over by various gangs and groups of people, and it was not a very safe place for them.

So together the police and the local community tidied up the graffiti, with the cooperation of the local shopkeepers. That community input and tidying up, critically, the graffiti on those buildings have seen a complete change in that community. The afternoon we were there it was after school and there were kids going into the dairy and buying ice creams and the things that kids buy from dairies after school all around New Zealand—maybe not ice creams down south; it is a bit cold at this time of year—like hot chips and that kind of thing. The community was restored to something like what it should be. A large part of that was due to the removal of the graffiti and the willingness of the community to deal with the problem.

That is what we are seeing in this bill, the Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill. The local authority has identified a problem—and good on it—and it has identified a solution. This House supports that approach. If, indeed, other local authorities, when this bill has passed through the House, wish to take up the opportunities presented by this local bill, then good on them. They, together with their communities, can overcome some of the problems presented by graffiti vandalism.

As I have said, and as the House has demonstrated, this bill has enjoyed wide support and a very collegial passage through the Local Government and Environment Committee, ably chaired by Nicky Wagner, but also with good input from all committee members. One of the things that the committee needed to tie down was a good definition of “graffiti”. Under the Summary Offences Act of 1981 “graffiti vandalism” means a person damaging or defacing “any building, structure, road, tree, property, or other thing by writing, drawing, painting, spraying, or etching on it, or otherwise marking it … without lawful authority; … and without the consent of the occupier or owner or other person in lawful control.”

The select committee did make a number of recommendations to amend the bill as presented. One of those was in clause 3, which was to make it very clear that the purpose of this bill was to allow the removal from private property of graffiti that is visible from a public place—that is, if any one of us were driving through town, or walking along the footpath, and that graffiti were visible from the street or the footpath. The purpose of this bill is to allow the removal of that graffiti from private property. That took a little bit of working through. When introduced, the bill had a wider and broader effect than really, I believe, was intended by the local authority.

We recommended amendments to clause 5 to include a definition of “graffiti” that was consistent with the Summary Offences Act. We also recommended amendments to clauses 6 and 7 that would require the council to state on the graffiti removal notice the source of the power it relied on. The amendments would also require people authorised by the council to take a copy of the notice served under clause 6(3), and for them to carry an adequate form of identification when removing graffiti, so that it was clear to anybody who took notice of what was going on that the person removing the graffiti was empowered to do so. We also recommended deleting clause 8, which seeks to protect the council from civil proceedings arising out of actions done in good faith. The reason for that is the committee does not believe that council employees should be given such protection, when other local authority employees are generally not. It is just applying a little bit of consistency.

I have noted that graffiti impacts negatively on the image of a city, of a neighbourhood, of a street, and of a town. It also has a negative impact on property values, and that is certainly not a good thing for any of us. Many councils have a zero-tolerance policy on graffiti. Some remove it for free from private properties, and places like Wellington City Council provide free kits so you can remove it yourself. So there are a lot of options there, but we are now considering this Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill. It is a good bill. It takes account of private property rights, it takes account of community interests, and it has enjoyed a lot of support through this House. I commend it in its second reading.

I call Andrew Little—my apologies. I have a habit of doing that. It is Andrew Williams—sorry.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think it is a case of “three counts and you’re out”. I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on the Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill. New Zealand First will be supporting this bill, alongside the other parties. I concur with the comments made by fellow members of the Local Government and Environment Committee in respect of the good merits of this bill. Congratulations to the Hon Trevor Mallard on bringing it to the House on behalf of Hutt City Council and Mayor Ray Wallace and his team. Well done to them for putting this forward.

I have had a little bit of involvement with graffiti during my 9 years in local government, and I was informed, I can recall, that tagging apparently originated on the subways in New York. That was where it first became of significance—many, many decades ago. It spread from there, and somebody picked up—

Hon Trevor Mallard: “Kilroy was here”.

ANDREW WILLIAMS: What was that?

Hon Trevor Mallard: It was English.

ANDREW WILLIAMS: Was it? Unfortunately, with the age of television in New Zealand, somebody saw what was happening in New York, and it was picked up in New Zealand and it kicked off. So people—

Hon Trevor Mallard: This was 1920s England.

ANDREW WILLIAMS: Yes, I know. This was New York that I was told about. It is unfortunate, because, as other speakers have commented, communities that have high levels of graffiti tend to also go along the lines of increased crime and increased activities such as vandalism and other negative things towards a community. It is disappointing when that occurs. When you go to some countries and you see no graffiti at all, it is very, very welcome. It is certainly nice to go to places where there is no graffiti, and some countries and some communities have been able to achieve that.

I can recall that, from the North Shore City Council’s point of view, at one stage we were spending up to $600,000 a year on graffiti, tagging, and vandalism. We managed to reduce that significantly over a period of 4 or 5 years when we dedicated a tagging team of several staff members, who started mapping and profiling the taggers and building up profiles of the regular taggers. When they were able to catch them, with the support of the Waitematā district police, they were able to then take them to court and try to get some restitution. Taking photographs of the tags and building up a good profile of the regular offenders certainly did reduce tagging significantly. In many cases, and in many cities and communities, it is only a handful of people doing much of the damage, and they can be prolific. They can get around significant amounts of geographic areas. It is very disturbing when one person, or a handful of people, can do so much damage.

It is also very disturbing for people. I can recall one Sunday being rung by an elderly gentleman who was most disturbed that their whole cul-de-sac near their retirement village had been graffitied. It was all over the tarmac of their cul-de-sac. They felt almost invaded. They felt that they and their community had been attacked, in a sense. I was very grateful to the staff at the time and to the people who did our tag removal on the North Shore. They moved in and had it removed within about 12 hours. It was all gone. They actually sandblasted the road and removed the tagging. That was a great relief to the people, who felt at the time, you know, most threatened by this horrible tagging all over their street.

One of the things we also did—and I know that many communities are doing this throughout New Zealand now—was make sure that access to aerosol cans and some of the various things that they use to put the graffiti on is restricted. This is a good thing. Communities most certainly must ensure that, wherever possible, they restrict access to, particularly, aerosol cans in lockable cabinets from the various DIY stores and hardware stores. Also, ID should be required to purchase them when they are being sold to people of perhaps a more youthful age, and those selling them can inquire as to what the real purpose of the purchase is. That is a good thing. I certainly would hope that responsible retailers throughout New Zealand will be doing that. What we certainly do not want to see is the likes of what was occurring in the past, which was corner dairies and corner shops selling aerosol cans. You knew full well that the main purpose of the purchase of those cans was certainly not to go home and do their homework or decorate some form of furniture; it was to go out and tag. Therefore, restricted access to aerosol cans is a good thing.

New Zealand First does have a couple of concerns. One is that, of course, the lid on the budget for the police and police resources is putting more pressure on the councils and the local authorities to do the likes of this work, when, in fact, if there were greater police resources and a bigger budget available to the police to apprehend many of the offenders, perhaps the source of the problem would not be there to the same extent. Instead, we have the situation where you are having to be the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff to fix the end result, rather than stopping it in the first place or apprehending those in the act. We certainly—from New Zealand First’s point of view—would like to ensure that in the future there are increased resources in policing to do the likes of the mapping and the profiling and the keeping of good registers of the main tagging offenders in order to properly apprehend them, take them before the courts, and have them correctly dealt with by our justice system to try to get either restitution or, certainly, community work out of some of the offenders and actually make them remove some of the works they have been guilty of.

There will definitely be other councils in New Zealand that will want to see this moved on throughout the country, and I certainly would hope that this is the beginning of it becoming a nationwide policy and a nationwide Act in the future, because it has merit. Again, we seem to be getting a lot of piecemeal legislation where one community can benefit from it, while another community literally over the road will not, and that is a shame. In the likes of the Wellington area, where there are some hot spots for graffiti, this would certainly be advantageous and very helpful to them. So I would certainly hope in the future that this Government or the next Government, with New Zealand First involved, will take this on to more of a national basis and ensure that all communities in New Zealand can respond in the same manner.

Just in closing, I congratulate those involved with this bill. I also congratulate the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee. The bill was handled in a very collegial manner. We did work through this and all the various issues. We did cover off some of the concerns about the authorities and some of the civil rights issues that were involved. Therefore, it is good legislation that we have as a result, because it has been hashed around a great deal and has been fine-tuned to come up with a very good solution that was acceptable to everyone. Congratulations again to Trevor Mallard on bringing it forward. Well done. This is a good piece of legislation.

I am pleased to speak on the Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill. I want to start by acknowledging the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee, Nicky Wagner, and other members, but I also acknowledge the local member for Hutt South, Trevor Mallard, for bringing this bill to the House. It is not often that we have a collaborative approach on some of these matters, and just on this local bill we have had a very, very collaborative approach.

I think at the heart of this bill are a couple of basic principles—actually, some principles that are very close to the National Party’s heart—and they are safer communities but also private property rights. I just want to talk a little bit about that, but I also acknowledge from the speech of Kris Faafoi, a Labour member of the House, that many of us have been victims of graffiti, so we personally know what it is like to have your property damaged. Some of us, or a lot of us, have been involved in campaigns, so we have mastered the art of removing moustaches and various other things from hoardings with a bit of meths and a rag. That is a very small example of how it feels to have your property damaged, but I think there are many members in this House who know what it feels like to have that lack of respect and to have your property damaged.

I think the other point that I would make is that we in this House can pass legislation that may try to rectify some of these issues, but underneath it we must always remember, as well, that the basic principle—and we know from some of the statistics that a lot more young people are involved in graffiti—of teaching people respect and the value of other people’s property is not necessarily something that will come from legislation. It comes from families. It comes from communities. But I think that this bill will help in a couple of ways. The first thing is, if we are able to remove that graffiti in a timely manner in the Hutt area, then what that says to some of those young people who do it for a particular status is that we are not going to tolerate it. We also know that if that graffiti does hang around, it is more likely that there will be other graffiti and that communities will be less safe. So I think it does help to be able to make communities safer and reduce crime.

What has been great about this collaborative process in the select committee is that we have seen some very valuable amendments, and I want to touch on them. One of the amendments is around the definition, and I think it was Holly Walker from the Green Party who helped provide that very clear definition. The other amendment that I was very keen on was the deletion of clause 8. This originally was in the bill, and we spent a reasonable amount of time on this. It provided the council with protection from civil proceedings arising out of actions that it may have had, even with reasonable care. I think members really felt that this protection was not needed and that council employees should not be given greater protection than other local authority employees. I think that is a really important point, because the whole way through this bill our discussion was not only how do we ensure that we can get rid of this graffiti in a timely manner—I think it costs $300,000 to $500,000 without this legislation for the Hutt City Council to be able to get the required consents to be able to remove that graffiti—but also how do we protect basic private property rights? I think that we saw clause 8 as being unnecessary, because it did mean that local authority employees would have greater protections over other local authority employees.

I think the other main point that I would make is that, as I have said before, this legislation can do so much. Although we may have done some great things to tighten up some of the clauses, there is a need to recognise that some of the young people who are engaging in graffiti are doing that for various social reasons, so we on this side of the House are supporting programmes like Youth Guarantee to make sure that they are engaged in education and in work and are not necessarily out there vandalising people’s private property.

I am not going to spend too much longer, but I just want to say that I do commend the local member Trevor Mallard—I think I have said twice now—for bringing this bill to the House. I do want to say that I think all members of the Local Government and Environment Committee have engaged in a very collaborative process to deliver what is a very important bill for the Hutt and its community, which involves making sure that our communities are safer and also protects some basic private property rights. I think that the member who spoke previously, Andrew Williams, is probably right. There will be communities around New Zealand that will be looking at this local bill and saying that they might be a little bit jealous. But I think overall it has been a very, very productive, worthwhile process, and I want to commend this bill to the House.

I understand the member is taking just a 5-minute call, so I will ring the bell at 4 minutes.

I am very pleased to take a short call on this bill, the Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill. As a new member of this House, it was very encouraging being in the Local Government and Environment Committee and it having such a constructive, collaborative approach to the legislation. Like others, I congratulate the member Trevor Mallard on bringing in this bill.

The Hutt City Council operates a free service to remove graffiti within the Hutt, and it spends over $200,000 on this annually. The bill will mean that council staff or their designated contractor no longer need to get permission to go on to private land to remove graffiti that is visible from a public place. That is provided that the council has given 10 working days’ notice to the property owner or occupier that it is going to do this, and provided that it has received no objection from them. If there is an objection, the graffiti stays.

The council wanted this bill because of the high levels of tagging and graffiti in the Hutt and its experience that swift removal helps avoid further tagging, and helps prevent buildings from appearing neglected and then being targeted for more tagging. So it addresses the issue of absentee property owners, and building and property owners who did not respond to the council’s request for permission for its graffiti contractor to remove the tags or similar graffiti.

When I first read this bill as introduced, I was concerned that it potentially gave the council excessive powers to remove political comment and graffiti art. That was because the bill had no definition of graffiti and no protection for property owners who may have allowed their fence or their blank concrete wall to be decorated with a political slogan, with a political hoarding, or with some form of graffiti art. Of course, what may be one person’s graffiti might be someone else’s pungent political comment. The bill as introduced would have allowed an overzealous council officer or contractor to paint over whatever he or she considered to be graffiti. So it was pleasing that the select committee agreed to include the definition of graffiti from the Summary Offences Act. That Act requires, of course, that there be an element of damage or defacement and that the graffiti is done without the lawful authority or consent of the owner or occupier.

There have been suggestions that this bill be applied nationally. Certainly, the Green Party would obviously consider any such bill on its merits, but I have some concerns there. The Hutt City Council has been very progressive on the one hand when it has been controlling and eradicating graffiti; it has also been very progressive about channelling the energy that goes into tagging and graffiti into graffiti art. As long ago as 1999 the Dowse Art Museum ran a Style Crimes exhibition of graffiti art and a festival that involved break-dancing, music, and the painting of a huge mural. So the council has been working hard to be very constructive in terms of the way in which youth can express themselves through graffiti art in a positive way. It is important that that is done, because it is a validation and a valuing of youth culture. If we create legislation that eliminates any form of human and youth expression by labelling it “graffiti”, that is not validating youth culture. So what the council has done is progressive in doing that on the one hand, as well as removing graffiti.

Another very significant change by the select committee was, as the previous speaker Nikki Kaye noted, the deletion of clause 8, because it protected the council and its agents from civil proceedings. The advice to the committee was that it was unclear why council employees should be given this protection, when other local government staff carrying out their responsibilities under other statutes like the Local Government Act did not have a similar protection from legal action. So as long as council staff are taking reasonable care, they are very unlikely to be held to be negligent.

This is a very good bill. The Green Party is pleased to be supporting it, and I commend the member for introducing it and the work of the select committee. Thank you.

I stand now to talk to the Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill at its second reading. I spoke at the first reading as well. This is, indeed, a good piece of legislation, because it fills a gap in the law. I think we are all agreed, on this side of the House anyway, and in the Greens pretty much, and possibly even on the other side, that graffiti actually encourages even more criminal acts. This piece of legislation allows any graffiti that is visible from a public place be removed. Others have outlined the measures, including serving at least 10 days’ written notice to the owner or occupier of the land, which does serve to protect property rights in the sense that if the owner does want to be responsible and step forward, then that is also allowable. But the owners do need to clean it up. Graffiti does need to go. The zero tolerance that is shown by some councils is, I think, to be commended.

This could be a bill that we all watch very carefully. As many others have said before me—and, being the penultimate speaker in this, most of the points have been made and reaffirmed many times—I think it is very important that we can all learn from this, and I will be watching very carefully what the mayor does with this. I congratulate him and the team on having a very good tool to work with. Graffiti has been a very expensive problem for the Hutt Valley. For those of us who know it well, it is a place that has been plagued with it for some time. I think that this is the kind of measure and this is the kind of bill that will not only save you $300,000 to $500,000 a year in the Hutt Valley but also allow people to not gain encouragement from seeing this stuff up on the walls and up on the fences. It does create an air of neglect in a city, and it is something that really needs to be addressed. I think of the North Shore, certainly, in the Auckland area, where it is a problem from time to time.

We will be looking at this bill and seeing whether it might actually be able to be rolled out nationwide, and certainly used in other areas. It is, indeed, an effective new tool, and I commend the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee, Nicky Wagner, for marshalling it through in an orderly fashion. There was, indeed, a great deal of collaboration and cooperation between the parties. Holly Walker from the Greens had put together a good working definition. I think everyone made a valuable contribution, including, of course, the person who has sponsored this bill, the member for Hutt South, who is not someone whom I have ever had cause to congratulate on a positive contribution. He is far more usually associated with unpleasant and negative remarks in the House. This may be a one-off. The leopard may change his spots, or he may not. I would certainly raise the challenge to him that making a positive contribution in the House and being pleasant, and not shouting people down, might be something that he chooses to take up, because it has worked rather well in this instance.

I commend the bill. I commend the process of the bill. I think it has worked very well, and I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

Bill read a second time.