Wagner Nicky: Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Wagner Nicky: Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 15 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4408. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I rise to support this Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill. I have to say that I think it is a good practical straightforward local bill brought to us in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard. The Local Government and Environment Committee canvassed the issues widely. We made a few amendments and some minor tweaks and we are now returning the bill to the House. 
As we have heard from the Hon Trevor Mallard the bill empowers the Hutt City Council to enter private land within its district and to take action to remove graffiti from a building that is in public view. We have already heard that it is not about stuff that is round the corner; it is about graffiti that is there in the community and makes people feel as if the community is being neglected. This council does have a significant problem with graffiti but it also has very good processes to deal with it. It works very cooperatively with property owners and people who are in the community and they are generally supportive. It has a very good rapid graffiti removal process and I think that it is something that other councils might need to look at. However there is an issue with some property owners and often these property owners may be absentee landlords who do not respond to the council’s requests to gain access to remove graffiti. This bill will solve that problem. 
There were seven submissions on the bill. The majority of them supported the bill and there were some suggestions and some concerns. Actually the main concern was the lack of a definition of graffiti. There were submitters and even members of the select committee who wanted to be sure that there was a clear distinction between art and graffiti. We are very aware that there is a whole new genre of graffiti art and we wanted to make sure that some inspired artwork perhaps by young people in the Hutt was not destroyed by mistake by people who were thinking they were cleaning up. 
We made three major amendments. The first was the insertion of a definition of graffiti. We chose a definition that was consistent with section 11A of the Summary Offences Act 1981. In this case it identifies “graffiti” as something that damages or defaces “any building structure road tree property or other thing by writing drawing painting spraying etching or otherwise marking it”. The definition has two provisos: that the work is done “(a) without lawful authority; and (b) without the consent of the occupier or the owner …”. 
Submitters were also concerned that owners and occupiers needed to know under what authority the councils were operating so we made an amendment that required the council to state on its graffiti removal notice the source of the power relied upon which of course is this bill. We also wanted to make sure that the council’s workers when they are cleaning up the graffiti are easily identified so clause 7 requires council operators to take a copy of the notice that they have served and to carry identification when removing graffiti. As the Hon Trevor Mallard has stated this is quite simple it is already part of their processes and the operators seem to be working well in the community. 
Finally there was clause 8 which sought to protect the council from civil proceedings arising out of actions done in good faith but without reasonable care. As I have said we have heard about the successful graffiti eradication programme and the fact that the Hutt City Council was spending up to $500000 a year to keep its city free of graffiti. We also heard that it had a very experienced operator who did an excellent job and was particularly good at matching the colours of the paintwork. That sounds like a trivial thing but if you have ever been involved with cleaning off graffiti the matching of colours is particularly important. However the select committee still felt that the council should not be exempt from taking reasonable care when removing graffiti from the buildings so we deleted clause 8 so that the council had the same responsibility that we would expect of others. I believe that the council was happy with that decision. 
Overall I think this is a good bill and I think it will serve the Hutt City Council well. In fact I think there may be demand from other councils to have similar legislation. Finally I would like to thank the staff of the Local Government and Environment Committee and all the members who worked hard on this bill. I would like to thank our advisers and I would like to congratulate the Hutt City Council on bringing this bill to the House. I think it is a job well done.