Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill

First of all, I acknowledge the work Sir Barry Curtis has done on this. Sir Barry worked extremely hard to try to get some control on graffiti in the city of Manukau, where there are over 300,000 tags a year. That is a huge amount. I have to acknowledge Sir Barry, and also the councillors in Manukau—in particular Daniel Newman, who has worked closely with me on this. I acknowledge my colleague Ross Robertson for all the hard work he has been doing. It is also true that all the members of Parliament from Manukau, I think without exception, have supported this bill and their council. This is a cry from the Manukau City Council for some help. I also acknowledge people like the Reverend Mark Beale, who worked very hard with the Manukau Beautification Charitable Trust.

I must say, though, that I was surprised to read on the front page of the Dominion Post today, about Mayor Kerry Prendergast of Wellington doing a moan about moves to actually help the graffiti problem. She did not come up with one suggestion—not one suggestion—and I would have thought that she would have. The former mayor of Wellington has been very supportive of this bill, and I think it is interesting that the mood has changed.

A young tagger was killed in Manurewa, and the mood changed. People are looking to this Parliament for some moves. Obviously, everyone knows that the Government has its own bill at the select committee, but I do not want to get into that too much, other than to say that Manukau City, as a council, has asked that this bill be passed as quickly as possible. There are amendments, and I am making some amendments, so that when the bill is passed, its wording will be more in line with the Government bill. Of course, it will also give shopkeepers time to get their spray-paint under lock and key.

Manukau is spending a million dollars a year—a million dollars of ratepayers’ money a year—on getting rid of graffiti. The Mayor, Len Brown, wrote to us on 4 February, and said he believes that the enactment of this Manukau bill will provide an interim solution until the Government bill is passed. I think that is very important. It also means that the Government, I am sure, will make sure that its bill is dealt with speedily.

How people react to graffiti is interesting. Some people see it as art; I do not. I have been an art teacher and head of an art department in a secondary school, but I have to say I do not believe that people using someone else’s property for their canvases has anything to do with art, at all. It is young people rebelling against society, and of course the Manukau bill does not have answers for that. People get to the stage where they are so frustrated that they just want to have some power to do things, and I think that that is where Manukau is at the moment.

My colleagues Ross Robertson and Judith Collins have both been very supportive of the council over this bill progressing. In relation to the last bill, we saw how an Opposition can draw things out for quite some time—by even talking about their mothers, those members can take up time. But in reality I hope that all people in this Parliament will work quickly to help this bill progress, because it is a cry from Manukau City to do something. I think we need to do more, of course. We have to look at the causes of tagging, and why young people are out on the streets of Manukau at 2 and 3 in the morning, spraying paint on someone’s fence, on his or her house, and on other buildings. I believe we have to act fast.

I am a Manukau City ratepayer, and as such I completely support the Manukau City Council in its attempts to try to deal with this absolute vandalism that goes on in Manukau and other areas of New Zealand. I think it is a real irony that today we have not only the National Party supporting this bill—which, of course, we have always had all the way through—but also the Labour Party, I understand, may now change its mind and support the bill.

When George Hawkins brought this matter to the House and it was sent off to the Local Government and Environment Committee, this is what Labour said about the bill. It said that it would not work. It stated: “We also believe Manukau City Council could develop and expand its urban design initiatives to minimise opportunities for graffiti.” So in other words, it is Manukau City’s fault—blame the victim—that is what Labour said to the Manukau City Council.

But, my goodness, what a difference a poll makes, or, in this case, several polls. People in this country are absolutely sick of the PC nonsense that has been given out by former Attorney-General David Parker in his advice on this bill that says we cannot have that because young people should be able to buy spray-cans, for some reason. Why? Is it a human need? No! In fact, we now have a Government that is so concerned about the fact that so many other people are concerned about this issue, it is saying that we will have this legislation right throughout the country.

However, I do despair of the fact that whatever bills we put through this House, we will still have people who break the law. And that is the difference. There is a huge difference between making the law and keeping the law—enforcing the law. It is already illegal to vandalise, it is already illegal to be a graffiti tagger, it is already illegal. Yet what happens? Nothing happens, other than the good ratepayers of Manukau City, the good people who live there, have to clean up the mess that these vandals leave behind.

Nowadays it is not just a matter of spray-can painting; the main thing being done now is etching. But unfortunately that will not be covered by this bill. People etch with pieces of glass or pieces of steel. They etch into glass so that the storefronts of properties are absolutely covered in etching. I can see that my colleague from down south does not understand why that would happen. Well, that is because etching cannot be removed as easily as spray-paint can. So I think we have to deal with some tremendous problems in relation to property rights and respect for other people’s property.

Unfortunately, we have had about 30 years of being told that property is not important and that it is owned only by capitalists. Actually, the people of Manukau can say to this Government that it is not about that; this is about people’s homes, their sense of security, and their ability to be able to come home and have some peace in their own home, and to be part of the community without having to live in fear. When I say “live in fear” I am not exaggerating. This is not just about spray-cans. This is actually about intrusion on to people’s property. It is intrusion by people who adopt a gangster-type persona and think they are part of some Los Angeles gang. Those sorts of people bring fear to the good people of Manukau.

I congratulate George Hawkins on having the courage to put this bill forward. I think he is a person who cares about his constituents in Manurewa, and I congratulate him on it. I also know that Ross Robertson feels the same and I feel the same. The people of Manukau have had a gutsful of graffiti taggers. We have had a gutsful of being told it is art. We have had a gutsful of cleaning up their mess, and it is about time they took some responsibility. I think it would really good to give some of these people a nice stay in a good fresh start camp in a nice place like Waiōuru, where there are fewer opportunities for graffiti art.

But I tell some of those members who do not come from places where this happens that now graffiti taggers even tag the trees.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Tag the trees?

They do—they really do. They tag trees. We have an entire bush just covered in tags. They tag the footpaths and they tag the roads.

What reaction did we have from the media when the first law was announced, when the Government suddenly decided that it did care about graffiti and it did not worry about Mr Parker’s opinion? What did the media do? They went along and made these little vandals heroes. They gave them publicity.

I despair of the fact that someone has been killed in Manurewa over this tagging. But I also say to people that this is the sort of thing that most people cannot stop, and the people who are the most affected are the people without the resources to move away.

Let me say at the outset in connection with the issue of graffiti that rather than lay blame, let us accept that there are faults on all sides when it comes to the issue of dealing with graffiti. Let us also accept that we need to work together as a Parliament in order to do something about trying to eradicate it.

I want to speak in particular to clause 3, the purpose clause, which states that the purpose of the legislation is to control the sale of spray-paint and to control graffiti in Manukau City. Why do we want to do that? Tagging is not only a crime against the conscience of our nation; it is also a crime against everything that is good and wholesome in our society. It is all about a culture of indulgence, where what is right and wrong is what one can get away with. There is no sense of responsibility and no thought for others. Whatever happened to the golden rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”?

Speaking as a longstanding member of Parliament for Manukau, along with my colleague the Hon George Hawkins, I acknowledge, and pay tribute to, Sir Barry Curtis, who, as Mayor of Manukau City—he is now retired—led the charge to make Manukau proud, progressive, and positive. When everyone else complained and did nothing, he was the one who decided that enough was enough. I want to refer to recent criticism by Wellington mayor, Kerry Prendergast. She attacked the Government for what she considers inadequate funding arrangements to defeat the scourge of tagging. There is such a thing as “tātou, tātou” or “we together”. Together we serve and together we prosper, and central government and local government can certainly work together on the issue of tagging and graffiti. I say: “Well done, Sir Barry. Your leadership is acknowledged this evening as we debate this bill, your bill, the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill.”

Tagging and etching with a sharp instrument cost this country millions of dollars every year. Anguish, heartache, and untold misery and stress are caused to those affected by the antics of those who want to leave their mark for others to see. Of course, I am reminded of dogs, who do a similar thing, except that they have to relieve themselves. If artistic taggers want to relieve themselves they should use their talents in other areas rather than on street furniture, statutory undertakers, and educational establishments.

Sir Barry is without equal in leading the anti-graffiti campaign, and maybe we should make him an ambassador to promote awareness of the ugly side of graffiti and why it should be eradicated. His immense talent in building Manukau to New Zealand’s most progressive city should see him continuing to serve our community. He has much to offer this country and he displays all the attributes needed. He is a man still willing and able to serve. He has the intellect, and can get his head around the subject. He has the heart and the courage of his convictions. He has the guts to know what the reality of the situation is, and he has the spiritual side of it in wanting to provide a service to our community.

Tagging requires the strong arm of the law and the willingness to enforce it. We need to ensure that this Parliament passes legislation that will enable us to contain graffiti. Some countries have much harsher penalties than we have in New Zealand. I do not want to go into that at this stage, because there other issues to debate when it comes to the whole issue of Part 1. Mr Hawkins might like to speak about the commencement of the bill because he has been a forerunner in promoting this issue in Parliament. He is to be commended for the work he has done.

I thought that as I spoke earlier on the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill, it would be rather remiss of me not to speak on the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill. Graffiti is not a problem that is unique to Manukau; it is a problem throughout New Zealand. It is a problem that has been within our community for a long time. I think that we should rightfully be concerned about people who damage the property of others. We view burglary as a very serious offence, and damaging other people’s property—incurring great costs to clean the damage up—is an offence. The consequences of doing that should be serious enough to warrant our support for this bill.

One of the things we have seen in Manukau in recent times—and one can see this particularly when using the airport—is graffiti painted all over the latest factories that have been put up along the road from the airport to Māngere. It is an ugly sight; it not a pretty image for a gateway to this nation.

I think this bill goes some way towards recognising the seriousness of the problem of graffiti and the level of that problem today. There has been a perception over many years that graffiti is acceptable, particularly in relation to the hip-hop culture, which is associated with graffiti, depicted on television programmes from the United States and elsewhere. I think that this bill will help to turn the minds of young people away from that sort of perception. I am not sure how effective it will be, but at least it is an attempt to do something about a serious problem.

I am not certain about the degree of effectiveness of this bill—and I think that has been mentioned by a previous speaker—but given the problem we have had and the level of ugly graffiti around the place, it is about time that this Parliament recognised the need for something to be done. So I support this bill.

I support those people in the Mangere electorate, and also those in Manukau, who work very hard to try to deal with the graffiti problem. I want to recognise a former Manukau city councillor from Māngere Bridge, Mr Bill Kirk, who is well known in the Māngere area and who has worked very hard to try to deal with graffiti over many years.

Progress to be reported presently.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill with amendment and progress on the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.