Genter Julie Anne: Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Genter Julie Anne: Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 19 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5395. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to rise and speak on the third reading of the Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill. I was not the Green Party member who was lucky enough to follow this bill through the select committee process. That was my colleague Holly Walker who previously congratulated the Hutt City Council on its efforts to swiftly deal with vandalism but also—and this is important—to channel the creativity of young people into street art and positive graffiti art projects. 
I think that a major concern of the Green Party when we first looked at this bill was the potential for the bill to dissuade more positive artistic graffiti of which there is plenty. It can certainly enhance the character of towns and cities to have artistic graffiti—street art—like in the many laneways of Melbourne and the work of Banksy in London and around the world. So it is really really critical that we do not lump all forms of graffiti into the same basket and say that it is necessarily a bad thing. I think it was a significant contribution that my colleague Holly Walker made on the Local Government and Environment Committee to ensure that there was a satisfactory definition of “graffiti” in this bill. It makes clear that art with the consent of the property owner is not graffiti for the purposes of this bill. The select committee also removed the clause that would have exempted the council and its contractors from civil liability if they caused damage while removing the graffiti. There were a number of positive amendments made to the bill during the select committee process and as it went through the House. Those changes allowed us to fully support this bill today. 
As previous speakers have noted tagging can be quite a negative element within society and it can lead to something that is known as the broken windows effect. We have noted that in urban areas where broken windows are not repaired in sufficient time or there are ugly scrawls on pieces of property—and clearly they are not street art—it contributes to a negative feeling in the area. It tends to undermine a sense of community cohesion and can in fact lead to spiralling social problems whether they be further vandalism or other sorts of crime and violence. 
Basically we want our towns and cities to be places where everybody feels welcome. Obviously tagging is not a form of street art it is not something that makes people feel welcome. If it cannot be cleaned up quickly then it can lead to a sense that this place is not looked after and it is not a place where people are welcome. That can lead to further antisocial behaviour. 
As I understand it tagging is a particular problem in the Hutt and the area has some of the highest rates within the country. Tagging tends to proliferate swiftly if it is not removed. But the Hutt City Council has been very proactive in removing tagging. It has a dedicated team and a programme which we have heard has been working very well. We congratulate the council on this. 
Now that the council will have the legal right that this bill creates it will be able to take its capacity and willingness to remove unwelcome graffiti or tagging to private property as well. This will be a very positive development for the community. The intent is not that the council would enter private property and remove graffiti if the owner wants the graffiti as I previously mentioned. That was a very positive amendment that was made to the bill. Also owners can respond within 10 working days which may not seem particularly important but it is an amendment from just 10 days. It allows greater time for owners to take this option to say: “Thanks but no thanks.” I think it is important that the council respect the property owner’s right to have that response. 
I have heard some of the speakers here today describe taggers as being quite selfish—people who go out and vandalise private property. That may be one way to characterise them but I think that it is worth thinking a little bit about why it is that some young people or some people generally do not feel like they are part of the community and whether there are better ways to deal with the sources of the problem rather than the symptom. Ultimately tagging is just a symptom of a group of people who do not feel like they are part of society do not feel that they have any particular reason to respect the rights of others. Within their own peer group and social group it is considered a sign of daring or bravery to go out and flout the law and to put their tag on a building or a piece of private property. 
I think that there is incredible scope for community building projects—which the Green Party would support—that would enable young people people who feel disenfranchised and feel like they are not part of society to have activities that do not result in this destructive vandalism of private property and also cause the ongoing ensuing social impacts that I mentioned before. I think there is great potential there and I think it would be sad if we wrote off people who are currently tagging as people who could not become constructive members of society and channel their passion their bravery and their willingness to flout the law into something more successful. [ 
Interruption 
] I was not suggesting that the Hon Trevor Mallard said that but I did hear other people say that today in the House. Other members characterised the people who are currently tagging as louts. I thought that was just a bit unfortunate. 
I think it is really important that we consider that the society we have now does not give equal opportunity to everyone to participate and I think it is worth us reflecting on the fact that if we understand better the causes of why people behave in antisocial ways we might be able to deal with that behaviour in a more constructive way that does not result in continually having to paint over tags. It is not really a very sustainable response if we constantly have to go back and paint over tags which are going to continue happening as long as people feel like that is the only way they can go out and assert their mana. 
When Parliament last considered graffiti removal legislation—and that was the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill—the Green Party opposed it because it contained all manner of Draconian provisions including restricting young people from purchasing spray cans. We were in favour of provisions like the ones in this bill that allow removal from private property provided that the civil liability clause was changed. So although we are very happy to support this bill I do not think it can be assumed that we would support similar legislation for other councils around the country. I think it is really important that we take them on a case by case basis and make sure that the provisions that are made for councils to deal with unwelcome tagging on private property are proportionate to the particular problems they are facing in each community. 
In summary I am very happy to commend this bill to the House. I congratulate the member on bringing it before us. We congratulate the Hutt City Council on its proactive approach to ensure that negative tagging is not causing continuing spirals of antisocial behaviour in the Hutt and also on having proactive programmes in place to try to channel the art and the creativity of young people in the streets. The Hutt may be a long way from the laneways of Melbourne but there is always the potential to channel that creative energy into some pretty outstanding street art even in the Hutt. Thank you.