Walker Holly: Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Walker Holly: Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 15 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4411. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
HOLLY WALKER (Green) 
: 
 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 TanaUmaga and PiriWeepu in Wainuiomata. 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 Petone to the site of the former Petone College or even before that Petone 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.