Hawkins George: Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill — Second Reading 
Hawkins George: Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:10266] 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 I move  
That the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill be now read a second time 
. I think this bill has come to this Parliament because of the frustration of the Manukau City Council and other city councils at the damage done by graffiti in their community. I want to acknowledge the support that Ross Robertson has given to Manukau City over this issue as well. 
The bill was drafted and initiated by the Manukau City Council in response to what is acknowledged as a very costly and an ongoing problem. Manukau City spends over a million dollars a year on fighting graffiti. The community itself probably spends closer to $5 million a year. Its neighbour Papakura District Council spends 1 percent of its rates on battling graffiti. It is rather interesting that a council has brought a bill to Parliament to try to get some changes. 
I must say at the outset that the bill is flawed. There are mistakes in it. There are things that cannot happen. However the council has looked at some of the problems and how to deal with them. The council believes that quick removal of a graffiti mark within 24 hours of being reported is important. It believes in community education and empowerment schemes. It also believes that town planning can help to overcome graffiti by better lighting and by making sure the design of council-owned properties does not lend them to graffiti being applied. 
 It is rather interesting that in New Zealand we do not prohibit the sale of substances to be used for graffiti and we do not put any age restrictions on them. That causes a bit of a problem for Manukau. However Manukau has really looked to see what it can do about it. The council has looked at overseas case studies. In particular the South Australian Graffiti Control Act of 2001 and the city of Phoenix graffiti prevention encoded enforcement policy have been closely examined. In other words Manukau City has worked on this for many years. 
I was first invited to a meeting with the Mayor of Manukau City when I was Mayor of Papakura and graffiti was a problem all those years ago going back to the 1980s. The council has advocated changes. In 2003 Sir Barry Curtis took the problem to the Local Government New Zealand conference and advocated that the local government body support the councils in getting something done about graffiti. Although the remit was accepted not a lot of progress has been made so far. In the end what has happened is that graffiti keeps appearing on the streets each night. One sees it in the morning on someone’s fence quite often on a fence that belongs to someone who cannot afford to paint it out. I have to congratulate Manukau City on its Manukau beautification programme which does get rid of the graffiti. 
Some people say that some graffiti is art. Well I have to say “Rubbish!” to that. Having been an art teacher for many years I do not see any artistic merit in defacing someone’s fence or other property or in defacing public facilities. I believe that anyone who calls graffiti art is really not helping the cause at all. 
It is interesting to note that various groups get in behind and try to help on this. We have church groups in Manukau who get out on Saturday morning and start trying to clean up the graffiti. We have people who cannot really afford very much joining groups to try to make their city look good. There is nothing worse for people coming into Auckland at Mangere than to leave the airport and see graffiti everywhere. Those who travel on the Auckland suburban rail network which I do see it all along the rail corridor. Of course that sends a very bad message to the whole community. 
Yes the bill has problems. There are New Zealand Bill of Rights Act issues that have to be addressed; one cannot just ignore them. We have to make sure that the people who cause the graffiti to blot our landscape are the ones who clean it up. I am pleased that the Government is making substantial progress in getting legislation to this Parliament that will perhaps minimise or get rid of the need for Manukau City to have its bill passed. 
However I can say that I am and my Labour caucus colleagues are supporting the second reading of this bill. I think that is really an acknowledgement that Manukau City is leading the way. Manukau City is putting its hand up. Members should look at other territorial authorities in Auckland. Waitakere and Auckland also have big graffiti problems. It is not as though there is surrounded by a fence a place called Manukau where graffiti goes on. Graffiti goes on all over the place. It is worse in the Auckland area. It is bad in other areas; it is bad in some of the provincial towns. 
When the Local Government and Environment Committee looked at the issue it thought this bill would not do much good for the provincial cities. It will not do much good for Papakura Manukau’s next-door neighbour or for Auckland when graffiti is in Otahuhu. But in the end we have to make sure that we win the war against the graffiti perpetrators. I want to say how pleased I am that the Labour caucus has discussed this thoroughly and decided to support this second reading but at the same time to develop legislation that will give protection to places like Manukau its neighbours and the provincial cities around New Zealand. 
I conclude by thanking Sir Barry Curtis and his council for the work they have done. I think that Sir Barry will acknowledge that people like Ross Robertson myself the Minister of Local Government and Phil Goff in particular have done a great job in supporting them and making sure that this Parliament will pass legislation that will help all the councils in New Zealand.