Shanks Katrina: Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill — First Reading 
Shanks Katrina: Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:677;Page:727] 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to take a call on the Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill. I thought I would talk to the House a little about the history of why this bill is important to the Hutt City Council. In 2011 the National Research Bureau Communitrak results showed that 31 percent of the residents were unhappy with the amount of graffiti in their city. This dissatisfaction had increased by 10 percent from the previous year and we know that residents perceive their city as unsafe when there is a lot of graffiti. So this is now considered a key issue for the residents in Lower Hutt.  
The council recently performed a graffiti audit and in this it was considered one of the worst areas in New Zealand. The prevalence of graffiti vandalism or tagging in the community signals a lack of social cohesion perceptions of danger and reduced property values for owners. Therefore it is detrimental to the people of the Hutt to have this amount of graffiti. But this legislation will not address the underlying causes of the graffiti; it addresses only the cleaning of that graffiti.  
This council has worked hard to try to get rid of its graffiti. It has spent over $300000 every year on the eradication of graffiti but tagging has increased over the last 2 years. In fact its contractor for the council has cleared more than 1000 tags every month—1000 tags every month. That is pretty incredible and that does not include the utility companies taking away their tags private property owners taking away their tags and community groups going and eradicating the tags.  
The council has also appointed a new graffiti coordinator which is a positive step in the right direction. But it is running numerous programmes out in the Hutt. It has got many tools in its box already. It is educating people at various levels. It is running a programme through schools called Tag Free Kiwi. It is providing information to the community on how to report tagging to the council. It is promoting legitimate street art. It has formed the Wellington Regional Graffiti Forum where the councils across the region have got together with the regional council and the police to try to work out what to do with graffiti problems. It has got effective reporting and database systems in place. And this is my favourite: it has Adopt-a-Spot whereby a community can go out and adopt a spot look after its spot and eradicate its graffiti. Resene which is a great company out in the Hutt has come on board and provided the supply of free grey paint to these Adopt-a-Spot initiatives.  
So the council has got a lot of tools in its tool box already and this bit of legislation is one more tool in the tool box. The current legislation does not allow the council to go on to private property to clean up graffiti marks that are visible from a public place so that is what this legislation enables the council to do. There are safeguards in place so it cannot come on to your property unannounced. It has to serve 10 days’ notice to the property owner or occupier to tell them what its proposed plan is when it is going to come on to the property who is coming and what they are going to do. So there are safeguards in place and the owner can object to the proposed action. If an objection is made to the council it will not take this proposed action.  
I have some concerns that I think need to be teased out in the Local Government and Environment Committee. One of them is the definition of “graffiti”; it is not in the bill. The other is the question of who the owner-occupier is who should be contacted and who pays for this graffiti removal. Do you know the answer to that Trevor?  
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The council.  
KATRINA SHANKS 
: The council is paying for it? That is great so the council is going to pay for this.  
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Trying to collect off these people is just hopeless.  
KATRINA SHANKS 
: Yes that would be right. So there is the question of who pays for this—and Trevor just cleared up that the council will pay for it—and on what grounds an owner-occupier can object. Is there a reasonableness test or is it just that they object and there is no test for that?  
The last issue which was brought up in a bit of the explanatory note of the bill is that there is no separate clause in the bill to compel the council to desist from the proposed action if an objection is received. I would like to see that teased out in the select committee process as well.  
Then there is the issue of civil liability. If the council goes on to a property and does damage to the property there is no come-back and I would like that teased out as well in the select committee process in terms of weathertightness as some cleaning products can cause problems with building materials. I would like that teased out as well but it is my pleasure to support this bill’s referral to the select committee. Thank you.