Dean Jacqui: Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dean Jacqui: Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 15 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4414. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 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.