Sharples Pita: Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill — First Reading 
Sharples Pita: Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:647] 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 The purpose of this bill is to provide for local control over the graffiti problem in Manukau. It is that word “control” that encapsulates the range of issues the Maori Party has with this bill. I will return to that later. 
I want first to look at the problem of graffiti. I am aware of the concerns that have prompted the Manukau City Council to take up this matter in the House. Indeed as a local member I am aware that there are concerns shared by constituents across Tamaki Makaurau that demand our attention. In the 2003 survey on the quality of life in New Zealand’s eight largest cities Manukau featured as one of the five cities that perceived graffiti as being problematic. The big-city survey described graffiti as impacting on the way people feel about where they live contributing to people feeling unsafe in their neighbourhood. Over half of the residents surveyed in Manukau and Auckland—62 percent and 52 percent respectively—stated that graffiti was a big problem in their neighbourhood. 
When I hear the honourable Minister talk of zero tolerance for graffiti writers I wonder about the direction in which our society is going. I would have thought that zero tolerance would be reserved for serious crime. We need fresh ideas creative courage and passion for our people. It should not be for us in Wellington to determine a set of solutions that we consider would suit the streets of Manukau. We must turn to the people of Manukau for that leadership—I emphasise: the people of Manukau not just the Manukau City Council. The Maori Party believes that people have the solutions. Solutions do not reside in the halls of bureaucracy whether that bureaucracy is in the debating chamber of Parliament or in the council chamber of Manukau City. Our responsibility as central or local agents of government should be to look for ways to support local solutions to locally determined problems. 
The solutions proposed in this bill consist of fines and wide-ranging powers for the council and police to get tough—and to get even. Such solutions are Draconian and overly punitive introducing a level of power and control coming up that responds to the issue of graffiti in a way that can only have serious consequences for the individuals involved. Are these the solutions that the people of Manukau want? When did they speak up to call for increased power for the police and council authorities? It sounds like a solution I heard that was promulgated to solve the problem of youth gangs: round them up and lock them up. I have been to community meetings in Mangere Otara Manukau Manurewa and Papatoetoe and I have seen concerned citizens being really creative in dealing with the gang problem in a healing manner and with long-term solutions in mind. 
Pita Paraone 
: Did it work? 
Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: It is working. I have spoken in this House before about the appalling increase in incarceration rates in this country. Let me remind members that there has been a 51 percent increase in less than 9 years from 4988 people in jail in April 1997 to a staggering 7545 inmates a couple of weeks ago. When we think about who our youth population is particularly in Manukau it will not take much imagination for us to work out who will be first to be convicted. It is rangatahi the youth. Why do the city mothers and fathers of Manukau want to incarcerate their young? Who will be the next to annoy them? Why is it the case that the only answers being created by central and local government seem to be the ones that lead down a justice trajectory? 
The Maori Party believes that people must determine their own solutions. That applies as much to the issue of graffiti as it does to other issues like that of youth street gangs fighting. We should not fear letting go of central control and providing space for citizens to shape our thinking in that regard. I asked around about different ideas from people outside of Manukau—about what they had considered in facing this problem of graffiti. The responses were overwhelming in their commitment to local innovation. In my colleague Hone Harawira’s town of Kaitaia I heard about Project Wipeout which involves the Community Probation Service the police and local businesses. The safer community council supplies brushes and equipment Kaitaia businesses supply paint to match their buildings and a backpack is provided to the offender for the prompt removal of graffiti. 
 I move south now to Te Uruora Flavell’s electorate of Waiariki and mention that the Tauranga City Council has established an 0800 SPEAK UP line for giving confidential information to police whilst also supporting the immediate removal of graffiti in all public places and visible private property through contracting removal services. Across the straits to Te Wai Pounamu the Kahurangi Employment Trust initiative helps keep Nelson graffiti-free and litter-free through a community project that encourages so-called alienated youth to receive mentoring and to learn working skills. These are all ways to tackle the issue of graffiti in a way that serves the community introduces an element of rehabilitation to the offender and avoids adding another statistic to our rates of arrest and conviction. 
This House must not set in place legislation that stifles creativity. Creativity is particularly important when considering the art of graffiti. The word “graffiti” simply means words or drawings scratched or scribbled on a wall. The word comes from the Greek term “graphein” meaning “to write” and the word “graffiti” is the plural of the Italian word “graffito”. Art in the form of graffiti originated in the late 1960s but graffiti in terms of public and unsolicited markings has been around forever. For those of us in this House who remember the 1960s we may remember the words of musicians Simon and Garfunkel in their classic hit “The Sound of Silence” which are: “The words of the prophets were written on the subway walls and the tenement halls”. Back in Aotearoa the words of the prophets were given status in June 1986 when a Wellington building from the 1900s was covered in graffiti by up to 2000 people. What criminal sanctioned this appalling act of vandalism? It was none other that the New Zealand Historic Places Trust which encouraged the graffiti to save the Missions to Seamen building. The graffiti included such messages as: “Don’t leave us with no yesterday” and “Save me”. Graffiti was called upon as a desperate public action to save the building. The “Sign It to Save It” campaign was ultimately successful as the Missions to Seamen building became a landmark of public significance. Earlier this year the graffiti exhibition Love Letters was an ambitious art exhibition that was part of AK05 the Auckland festival. The heart of the city exhibition gave prominence to Bucklands Building in Takutai Square and was also seen as art not crime. 
So what is different about Manukau? The act of graffiti can be seen as a defiant act of vandalism or it can be seen as a statement of identity a social commentary or an art form. The graffiti art that emerged in New York in the 1970s became associated with the explosion of hip-hop culture in the 1980s. Inevitably here in Aotearoa the influence of Maori and Pasifika taggers gave it a local edge. The Disrupt Gallery in Karangahape Road could be one site visit that I would recommend every member of Parliament having a look at. The gallery displays the talents of the graffiti art collective Disruptiv and the works in that gallery are a celebration of identity. Indeed even to the novice the distinctive art of an individually styled name is the focal point in the majority of graffiti paintings. 
We in this House need to be brave with our decisions and not reduce every problem to a quick fix fine or arrest. The problem of graffiti is one of arrested creativity and it is with creativity that we should respond. All that increasing the capacity of the police and the city council officials to surveil arrest and fine offenders will do is to add to our justice hall of shame. We could instead look to create a hall of fame through encouraging communities and individuals to consider alternatives for the creativity and talent of the taggers to be put to constructive means. It may well mean that we reduce and minimise the risk for graffiti to be an act of vandalism and in the process create opportunities for the growth of art and culture celebrate identities and build community spirit and in doing so create solutions that we can all sign up to. No reira tena koutou.