Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) Link to this
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 Māngere 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 Ōtāhuhu. 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.
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) Link to this
It is great to be able to follow that concession speech. It was a concession speech, because this Labour Government did not want to support the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill, even though it was being brought to the House by George Hawkins.
Hon Mark BurtonUnfortunately, all we need for some proof about that, Mr Burton, is to look through the report from the Local Government and Environment Committee. The Minister of Justice has said that we do not need to have this bill, that we cannot have this bill, and that this bill is a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—it is this, this, and this. But then, at the end of the commentary, we see what the real issue is. The real issue is that the National Party supported the bill, New Zealand First supported the bill—and United Future, I would say, are supporting it—and suddenly the numbers were there. I would not be at all surprised if Taito Phillip Field is not supporting it, too. The numbers are there, and that is what this is all about—it is the numbers game.
I noticed that Mr Hawkins said that it is a shame Manukau has had to put forward this bill and that the legislation will help only Manukau, but that it has done a good job—well, it has. But Manukau had to do this only because this Labour-led Government had not done it for the rest of the country. The Government had not put in legislation that councils could sign up to. It did not allow councils to make that decision. Mr Hawkins has said, rightly, that other parts of South Auckland and other parts of the country will not be covered, but when this bill goes through—even though, as he has just described it, the legislation is flawed—other councils will say: “And what about us?”. We will have to have national legislation right the way through the country, and that is what there should have been.
Instead, this Government has done what it has always done—pushed more cost on to local government. I think that is a real shame. Local council rates keep going up, although I have to say that Manukau City Council has been pretty good in trying to keep its increases under some level of control. But the council has said that it is sick of having all the costs put on it without it having any of the power. That is one of the good things about this bill: it gives Manukau City Council a little bit of power to do something about the graffiti that destroys and ruins neighbourhoods.
I would like to put a plug in here for the people who have to live with graffiti. These people are often poor or elderly, and without a lot of extra money. They are people who do not have someone they can call up to come and remove graffiti. These people are the ones who suffer the most, and it is their neighbourhoods that get attacked by graffiti more than any other neighbourhoods. I think it is incredibly important that this bill go through, because graffiti people, taggers—or whatever these people call themselves; and I agree with the previous speaker that they are definitely not artists—absolutely destroy people’s property and environment. Of course, it is only a little step from there to destroying peoples’ houses and cars, burgling their property, and ruining their chances of actually getting something a little extra in their houses. These graffiti people need to be stopped, and I congratulate Manukau City Council on putting this bill forward.
The bill is also an example of MMP working, because the Government did not want the bill. It fought against it. In the report of the Local Government and Environment Committee, the Government is completely against it. Its Ministers’ reports on the bill are completely against it. We have this very, very interesting situation, because the last time the previous speaker, Mr Hawkins, spoke on the bill, it was not going anywhere except to a select committee, and nobody expected it to come out of the select committee to anywhere other than to be consigned to the dustbin. When Mr Hawkins last spoke on the bill, it was not going anywhere; Labour was not going to support it further. Now, suddenly, it is a great bill. It may have flaws, but it is a great bill and the Government loves it. That is what is called the numbers game.
I know Mr Hawkins is pleased, because he does not like his bills being put up, then thrown out. He likes doing the right thing by the local council, and he likes to be able to take some credit for it. But, really, if Mr Hawkins is going to be absolutely straight about it, then it is always best for him to acknowledge that it is actually a numbers game. And we won on this one—we who think we should be standing up against these graffiti taggers, these people who abuse property, and the people who go with that. We are pleased we are able to work with other parties and to say we have helped to make this happen. And if Mr Hawkins wants to take a bit of credit for it, then good on him, because we think it is a good thing, as long as Manukau City Council gets the rules it needs.
We just hope that the bill will not be gutted in the Committee of the whole House. We just hope that the Government will not try to pull the wool over the eyes of New Zealand First and other parties, in order to gut the bill of any of its strength—[Interruption]—which is what happens all the time. I agree with Mrs Tolley; she is completely right. We want to make sure that the bill does what it states it will do, because if it works—and we believe it will work—then we should be rolling out its provisions throughout the country.
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) Link to this
That was the typically negative, whingeing, unconstructive set of comments that we have come to expect from Judith Collins. Judith Collins is so “worried” about the problem and so “worried” about her constituents that I get constant complaints from them that she is never there—
No, in Clevedon—the electorate she advertises for but never appears in, because she is not interested in doing work on the ground. People ring her and ask for her help, but she is not there to help. She is neither serious nor genuine about the job. But enough of that member, because—
It is not an insult; it is a statement of fact. That member does nothing for her electorate, and she has done nothing in the area of graffiti control.
Let me come to the bill. I want to congratulate George Hawkins on his commitment to this issue. I have worked with George on the issue of tagging over a long period of time. I know how seriously he takes it, I know the effort he has put into it, and I know that he works closely with the Manukau City Council. That council regards him as an excellent local member, unlike the member for the Clevedon electorate. I also want to congratulate Barry Curtis and the Manukau City Council, because they have recognised a problem that is of concern to their residents and ratepayers.
I have to say, as the member representing the electorate of Mt Roskill, that the problem is also a real concern to my residents and ratepayers. In fact, last Friday I was on the side of State Highway 20 in my electorate, working with some of the local people in trying to clean off the graffiti. We have had a gutsful of these young people who think they can use the rest of the city as their blackboard, scrawling over private, public, and commercial property and thinking they can get away with it. Well, they cannot get away with it, and we are determined to do more about that problem.
I want to recognise what is already happening. I want to recognise what Manukau City Council is doing with regard to its rapid removal of graffiti. It is spending $1 million a year—as are the Waitakere City Council and the Auckland City Council—in cleaning graffiti off property. If we look at the wider effort, we see that the cost runs into millions of dollars. But Manukau City Council is very effective in what it is doing. It is working on preventing graffiti, through education and in a partnership scheme with the community. It is working on getting volunteers out on the beautification scheme it is running and on anti-graffiti design. That council is known in Mount Roskill for its pioneering anti-graffiti design and environmental management initiatives. If only the member for Clevedon would stop her whingeing and negativism, and actually get out and do something and work with the council, then that might make it better.
I would also like to pay tribute to an anti-graffiti programme that is operating in Auckland, and in particular to the man in charge of it, Rob Shields, who works out of my electorate. A free-of-charge eradication service is run for street frontage private property. The programme involves a database, and when tags are photographed the database is used for evidential purposes, to prosecute in court. Closed-circuit television cameras are in operation, and we have done stings on some of the areas that have been most affected. People have been prosecuted as a result. Some of them have been fined very large sums of money; others have been ordered into community work. I will give members an example. Over the last couple of years nearly 500 arrests and apprehensions of graffiti vandals have been made, and that is good. The council is getting on and doing something about the problem.
Just two months ago, in Auckland, the Auckland Region Graffiti Free Project was set up, bringing together the council and the police, and there is a new commitment on the part of the police to do something about this problem. So things are happening, and I applaud that. I am working with my local council and with other people—just as George Hawkins and Ross Robertson are working with their mayor—and we are making some progress on it. But it is not enough.
I want to come to the bill, because I think that it contains some very good things we need to address. The bill addresses five different areas. One is the sale of spray-paints. The council’s answer is that it thinks it can require retailers to secure spray cans and prohibit the sales of spray-paint to those under the age of 18. I think we have to do something from the retail aspect. A lot of these cans are being stolen because of not being properly secured. They should be behind the counter or in a cupboard, not stacked up in rows by the door of the retail outlet, from where they can be readily stolen. But there are New Zealand Bill of Rights Act issues in terms of some of the provisions in the bill. Obviously, those have to be addressed, and seriously.
The bill creates a graffiti offence and also creates an offence of carrying a graffiti implement. The problem with that is not that the council is not trying hard to find a solution but that we need a solution that runs across the whole city—in fact, across the whole country. It is no good banning spray cans from being where they can be stolen in Manukau if people can steal them from outlets in places such as Ōtāhuhu and Papakura by walking across the boundary, because, strangely enough, taggers do not respect city lines. They will not regard those places as no-go areas if this legislation goes through. So we in this House have to look at how we can universalise some of these solutions. I am in favour of creating a specific graffiti offence, and I think we can do that.
I am also in favour of increasing the penalties for making graffiti. That is no problem; it is part of both the Labour Party’s manifesto and the Minister of Justice’s design in this area. Most of all, I am in favour of seeing those young people who are scrawling over the property of my constituents, over public property, over Transit land, and over ONTRACK land being required to get out there and clean their damage up as the punishment. The punishment for tagging that is most effective is to get those young people out there cleaning the tagging off. I was out there in a set of white overalls—
That member screeches and yells across the House like a harridan. She ought to get out and do something, instead of whingeing.
I am saying that the appropriate way to deal with these young taggers is, first, to make sure they are apprehended. We need to work with the police on that; we need more effort there. And second, when the taggers are apprehended, we have to make sure they pay for the damage, or, as is the case in many instances, if they cannot afford to pay for the damage, then they should have to get out there on their Saturdays and Sundays with a paintbrush and clean up the damage. I stood on the side of State Highway 20 in my white overalls—in my prison boiler suit—and my orange jacket, and I thought: “I’m not the one who put this up there. The people who should be out here in the white overalls, as in the south of the United States, ought to be the young people who actually created that damage to our environment.” That is going to be a critical way of creating a deterrent to people tagging. If they have to take off the graffiti—and it takes a lot longer to take it off than it does to put it on—they will soon tire of doing that if they know there is a reasonable chance of apprehension and that that sort of penalty will follow. That is what we need to do.
There are other powers in the bill. One is to provide people who are not police officers with the power to require those people whom they apprehend to name others. I think there are New Zealand Bill of Rights Act issues in that. Even the National Party would agree with that; its members claim sometimes to be civil libertarians. Clearly, changes would be needed in this bill.
But the critical change we need is to have legislation not simply covering Manukau but covering the country as a whole. The critical problem with this bill is that it is localised only to the Manukau area. The changes that we need, need to be made across the board. I know that the Minister of Justice is working hard on them at the moment, and that things have happened already.
Under 9 years of a National Government absolutely nothing was done. John Carter can sit there and laugh. Not a thing was done under 9 years of that failed Government. National failed to do anything useful, socially. It had a failed law and order policy, it had a failed economic policy, and now it pretends it has some answers. The thing about this bill is that we are not debating National Party answers, because it has none. There is not a policy that the National Party has put up in this House that the public can look at and say: “Here is something that the National Party would do if it came to office.” That party has no policy. That is why we judge it on its track record. If we judge that party on its track record, we can see that it has been appalling.
If we judge the National Party’s members on what they say, we know that that is pretty hopeless. Question time after question time we hear National Party members who say one thing in the paper one day, and 5 days later contradict themselves and say the opposite. John Key said that climate change was a hoax, and now he is saying that we are not doing enough about it. John Key and the National Party said that the nuclear-free policy would be gone by lunchtime. Don Brash was gone by lunchtime, but the National Party suddenly had a reversal of policy. [Interruption] It is no good that woman shrieking across the House.
There she goes. She absolutely makes a fool of herself—in her electorate and in Parliament.
I applaud Manukau City Council for its initiative. I think there is a lot in the bill that needs to be picked up and worked with, but it needs to be picked up and applied across the country. It is not only the legislation that is needed; I know that a series of initiatives is being worked on at the moment, and will be announced shortly, that will help free this country finally of tagging, which every citizen in this country will applaud.
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) Link to this
I have to say that that was one of the funnier speeches we on this side of the House have heard—not that that member is known for his humour. But when we analyse it, we find that that speech had some humorous moments because of the irony of some of the things he said.
Let me just address them. He criticised my colleague the very good representative from Clevedon about the fact that, according to him, she is not there. That is a bit ironic, is it not? I do not remember that member losing her seat. In fact, I seem to recall that her majority increased from 3,000 to 13,000. That member over there, because he was such an inadequate member, lost his seat. The fact is that whether or not he likes it, he was kicked out by the people he represented because he was not representing them properly. That is the first point.
I think it was Gilbert Myles. That is even worse. I had forgotten about that.
But the other thing that is a bit ironic, I have to say, is that he says the Government is going to get the young kids to clean up the streets, and get them to do this and that. Well, was it not that member, when he was the Minister of Justice, and was it not the person taking this bill through, George Hawkins, as the former Minister of Police, who actually stopped that from happening? One was the Minister of Police and the other was the Minister of Justice, and they stopped that from happening under their watch. But here they are now saying it should be happening, and the Government should be doing it. Well, goodness gracious!
I have to say another thing that is really ironic. The report of the Local Government and Environment Committee says: “The Local Government and Environment Committee has examined the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill and recommends that it not be passed.” Let us have a count up. How many National people are on that committee? I think there are four. I think there is one from the Greens, which makes five, and there are four Labour members. Given that the National Party put in a minority report in support of the bill, what does that leave apart from the four members from National? Of course, the member from New Zealand First who was sitting in on the committee was also supportive but could not vote, or otherwise it would have been a tied vote. So does that not leave one Green member and four Labour members who voted against the bill? I think that at least the Greens were being consistent—they were sticking with their position—but, of course, Labour was rolled. That is what happened.
Let me give one other irony from that member’s speech. It is from Mr Goff, who says that the very good Minister of Local Government is out there; he has a lot of plans happening and he is going to deal with graffiti, because this bill is too narrow and it should be going right across the country. One of the reasons why—and the member for New Zealand First will remember this—the Labour Party voted against this legislation in the select committee is that members were told that the Minister of Local Government was about to bring down a system that would deal with graffiti across the country. Therefore, we would have a universal system of dealing with graffiti, and there was no need for us to have a local bill because the Government was right on top of it. Well, I think the paint must have fallen off that, somehow. Is that what has happened? Suddenly, is it not ironic that Mark Burton, the Minister of Local Government, is sitting there, while the Minister of whatever Phil Goff is Minister of these days—
He is the “Minister of Travel”? While he made his speech, the Minister of Local Government sat mute and made no contribution at all, and did not defend the fact that the select committee was told that, yes, the Labour Government had got the answer: the Minister of Local Government was going to stride into the House and blow the graffiti away. Kids were going to have their hands tied behind their backs so they could not do any more graffiti, because Mark Burton had it all sorted out. And now he is not taking a call. I have to say that that, to me, seems a bit ironic as well.
When we really think about it, can we understand why the Government has changed its mind? Why were all the reasons that it was not good enough to support the bill in the select committee valid then, and why are they not valid now? Actually, it comes down to numbers. The fact is that the Government ain’t got the numbers to stop it, so now its members have the embarrassment of standing up here and supporting the bill, and speaking for it even though they do not believe in it.
Of course the member George Hawkins will say: “Well, of course, I’ve got the strength to carry the caucus with me.” He will stand there and say: “It’s because they weren’t going to go against me.” I have a funny feeling—did he not get a message from the Prime Minister yesterday? [Interruption] That is all right. Good on him, anyway.
So there are a few ironies about the bill. But the other thing I want to say on this bill is that it is another indication of systemic failure in our society. That is what is so important about this bill. It is not just about graffiti. We can start loading this bill in with things like the failure that we now see in our education system, the fact that our health system is not responding to the public of New Zealand, the failure we are seeing in our police recruits, and the fact that everywhere we look we see young people in the care of the Department of Child, Youth and Family who are not responding in the way they should, and who are not being dealt with. There is failure anywhere and everywhere we look in this society, and it has happened under this Government’s watch. This society is starting to seriously unravel, and this bill is just another example of that unravelling.
We need to take this issue seriously, not just because graffiti is a serious issue but because it is just another example of the attitude of people in this country. We now have a society that believes in and knows its rights, but that will not accept its responsibilities. This bill is just another example of kids thinking they can get away with anything and everything, and not have to be responsible for that.
So because the Government will not deal with graffiti, what happens? In this case, the local authority has decided that it has to take the responsibility for this issue, in its area. But actually the sad fact is that that is occurring right across this country. People, local authorities, and communities are crying out for leadership from the Labour Government and they are not hearing it, not seeing it, and not getting it. That is actually what, fundamentally, we need to understand about this bill. It is actually about a wider issue than just graffiti, and it is about a wider issue than just the matter of Manukau.
I say to this Government, to Helen Clark, to the Ministers who sit over on that side, and to the member taking this bill through this House, that they should think hard and long about why they finally got rolled on this issue. They should think long and hard about why they have done a turn-about and are supporting the bill. This country is actually giving those members a signal and telling them that it has had enough. The majority of the people in this House are now starting to say “We’ve had enough.”, and the majority of this country are telling those members “We’ve had enough.” People have waited 8 long years for leadership and have now decided they are not getting it. They are opposed to what the Government is doing.
One of the ironies is that finally the Government has been forced to make a decision and give some leadership, and the sad fact is that the Government has been rolled. It deserves to have been. This bill deserves to be passed. The shame of it is that it is so narrow, and that the Minister of Local Government and the Labour Government have not done their job on this issue.
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) Link to this
Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Some interesting comments have been made from members on both sides of the House on this matter. First of all, I declare my vested interest, as I always do where I hold such an interest, and I do so in this case. Why? Because I am a resident of Manukau City and I pay rates. If I do have a criticism of the Manukau City Council, it is over the level of rates it is charging me.
Having gone through this process as a non-voting member of the Local Government and Environment Committee, I can understand why the Manukau City Council is so concerned. I continue my contribution to this debate on behalf of New Zealand First by quoting from today’s editorial in the Timaru Herald: “Forget all the nonsense about hidden messages, artistic endeavour, or challenges to other groups of taggers. It is simply the human equivalent of what cats do when they spray their territory with foul-smelling urine, and just as primitive. It achieves nothing other than leaving a mess on a fence or building for the property owner to clean up, and because paint is used, the removal takes time, money and effort.”
We have heard from the Mayor of Manukau City, Sir Barry Curtis, about the amount of money it is costing that council to address this issue, and the amount has been alluded to by previous speakers. I would acknowledge the Manukau City Council for putting forward this bill. It is a major problem not only for Manukau City but for Christchurch, North Shore, and obviously for Timaru, and we know that it is also an issue and a problem for a whole lot of other metropolitan areas around our country.
As a resident MP in Manukau City I ought to remind the council that when it first brought this Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill to this House, it advised every MP living in the Auckland area of it except for the present speaker, and I do not know why. I hope the council finds some irony in all of this. Here I am, the one they failed to advise, putting in a pitch for the council and this bill.
Why is it so important that Manukau City addresses this issue? Manukau City, I say to all those who are listening, is the gateway to New Zealand. I do not believe that visitors to this country should be confronted with what taggers call art, graffiti, or whatever they like to call it. But quite clearly, if we are to present our country to the world, then it is important when visitors come through the front door that they are met by a city that is not covered in graffiti.
This bill is an attempt by a local body to address an issue that is a national problem. During the select committee process members had some sympathy for the bill, but at the end of the day the committee felt that it could not support it. Notwithstanding the comments made about numbers and the rolling of particular parties, at the end of the day this House needs to pass a bill that not only will be for the benefit of Manukau City but also will lead to positive effects for other local bodies that suffer from the same problem.
I reiterate that the purpose of this legislation is to minimise the graffiti problem in Manukau City, to deter and penalise graffiti offenders, and to provide the council and the police with additional powers to deal with graffiti associated problems. I know that although the bill is well intended, there are problems with it. Some previous speakers have alluded to that. For example, while the retailers who operate within the Manukau City boundary may be able to follow the intent of this bill if it is made into law, what of the retailers who live outside Manukau City boundaries? Because of where the Auckland metropolis area is, it would be quite simple for those who find some joy in tagging or in marking public property without the consent of the owners to acquire the tools that they require to carry out their antisocial behaviour.
New Zealand First supports the bill, which will make Manukau City one of the first places, if not the first place in New Zealand, to have strict anti-graffiti laws that could then also be considered for other local bodies throughout the country. We heard from previous speakers about what other local bodies are doing. I know that a press release from the North Shore City Council headed “Tagger Time Bomb” indicated what that council was doing to try to address this problem. It would seem to me that North Shore City Council has a process in place that is being carried out in association with the police. The Mayor, Mr Wood, is calling on Local Government New Zealand and the Minister of Justice to support the police-led, region-wide graffiti eradication programme. We heard during the select committee process what this Government is intending to do, and I refer to the report, particularly where it covers national developments.
The Minister advised us that the Government has adopted, and is implementing, a six-point plan to address graffiti issues. The specific issues in the plan include setting up an 0800 graffiti removal hot line, promoting environmental design to make it less practical for graffiti to be written, requiring offenders to participate in supervised graffiti clean-up crews, and promoting education programmes and the use of relevant role models in schools. We also heard that the first year of the graffiti strategy would end on 30 June 2007, which is just a few days away, and that it is intended to establish an effective basis for future projects. We also understand that the whole strategy will be rolled out over 4 years and will receive further funding as the initiative gains momentum.
So quite clearly the Government has something in place and it will certainly address this issue. But I again acknowledge the efforts of Mr Hawkins for bringing this matter to this House on behalf of Manukau City, the largest city in New Zealand. I look forward to discussing this bill in more detail, particularly during the Committee stage. Kia ora.
SUE BRADFORD (Green) Link to this
Although the Green Party was on the Local Government and Environment Committee, which dealt with the bill, and I did attend the hearing of submissions, I take this opportunity to reconfirm our original position of opposition to this bill, which is the same conclusion that the select committee itself has reached. I am now astonished to find that the Labour Party is supporting the bill, and I have been very interested in the debate and comments about why Labour now supports this essentially flawed legislation.
The issue is not that the Green Party does not have great sympathy for the position that Manukau City finds itself in. Mayor Sir Barry Curtis, councillors, and staff reported to us at the hearings last year that graffiti vandalism in their city has increased by an estimated 500 percent over the last 5 years. At the time of their submission, staff were removing tags from 1,500 sites a month, roughly—up from 300 sites 5 years earlier. The council gave us an estimate that a tagger with just one $3 can of spray-paint can cause up to $7,000 worth of damage. The council reported that it has 30 people out every day painting out graffiti, and that it spends close to $1 million a year on that, yet still it feels that it is not keeping up with the blight on the landscape.
Businesses and residents throughout Manukau City are, understandably, totally fed up with the situation they find themselves in and are desperate for solutions. Thus they came to Parliament with this bill, which they saw as a way to control graffiti in their city through a number of discrete measures. Those measures include regulating the display and sale of spray-paint, creating new graffiti offences, empowering the local authority to go on to private property to remove graffiti, and providing additional powers to the police where they suspect a graffiti-related offence has been committed.
However, although all those measures may sound fine on the surface, there is an underlying problem with a local bill of this nature, in that it attempts to amend the criminal law in one territorial local authority area, when our criminal law actually applies on a national basis. We do not have a federal system like that in Australia or the United States, where it would be technically and legally a lot more feasible to create criminal laws that are applicable or specific to a particular locality. The Green Party agrees with the select committee’s observation that in a country like ours, with a unitary legal framework, it would be a mistake to amend or modify the criminal law on a localised or piecemeal basis.
We also note that because of the local nature of this bill, passing it could also lead to unfortunate and almost certainly unintended consequences, such as people moving over the borders into neighbouring areas to carry out their tagging activities—just intensifying the problem in the cities beside Manukau—and obliging taggers to use substances other than spray-paint because of the tighter regulations on the sale of spray-paint in that city only. Of course, people could go over the borders of Manukau City to buy or steal spray-paint, anyway.
A second area of concern the Green Party has with regard to this bill arises from the way that it infringes upon the rights of children and young people. For example, it proposes to stop the sale of spray-paint in Manukau City to people under the age of 18. In fact, the people who spray graffiti may be of any age at all. In addition, limiting sales in that way also discriminates on the grounds of age, without there being any particular reason why 18 should be used as the cut-off point. As the Children’s Commissioner told the select committee, she considers that the bill is “antagonistic toward children and young people and further contributing to negative stereotyping of youth in Aotearoa New Zealand.”
The Green Party also shares the anxiety of a number of submitters about the extension of police powers contained in this bill, and about the fact that it is inconsistent with at least two separate areas of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.
On a more positive note, I acknowledge the comments made by the select committee about the various alternatives that local bodies around New Zealand have put in place to deal with graffiti vandalism. They include things like youth and community initiatives to beautify cities, including initiatives within Manukau itself, and the work done by the Christchurch City Council through its accessible reporting systems and its legal art programme, now called Project Legit, through which taggers—in some cases referred by the courts or by youth justice officials—are encouraged to use their artistic propensities in useful and legal ways. Mr Goff has also mentioned the initiatives now happening across Auckland to get local bodies working together on the graffiti problem, as well as working more closely with the police and other relevant organisations. Those are all good things.
The Green Party believes that further solutions and assistance are needed to help local bodies to deal with the graffiti issue, but that such solutions should not cut across the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act or continue to demonise children and young people. We believe that solutions should come after genuine consultation with children and young people, particularly in the districts most affected by graffiti crime. Both the Government and local councils need to do more to implement programmes that address the reasons behind the graffiti epidemic—for example, through doing a lot more to provide activities that both challenge and entertain young people in culturally and socially appropriate ways. Heavy-handed legislation and increased police powers will only increase alienation and anger amongst young people who are already, in many cases, disenfranchised, bored, and cut off from the society whose buildings, fences, and walls they feel impelled to deface.
The Green Party supports the enforcement of existing legislation. We support increased Government and local government funding for appropriate activities for children and young people, as well as ongoing consultation with them to find solutions to the graffiti problem. However, we do not support this bill, despite the very real problems it attempts to address. We need to take a fresh approach to graffiti that understands the realities of taggers’ lives, that learns from successful overseas and local initiatives, and that takes a national overview.
HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) Link to this
Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, tēnā tātou e te Whare. I mua tata atu i te taenga mai o tēnei pire ki te Whare i te tau 2005, ka tae mai tētahi imēra mai i a Diva, he tohunga tuhi anuanu e mahi ana i āna mahi mō ngā tau e 5 i Tāmaki-ki-Raro.
E mea ana a ia: “E aroha ana mātou ki ngā rangatahi, ngā tai tamatāne, tai tamawāhine anō hoki e noho kuare ana i Tāmaki-ki-Raro. He pai kē atu kia tautoko i ngā mahi e hiahia ana e te rangatahi. Mā ngā mahi tuhi anuanu, ka uru ki roto i a rātou kia kai ngākau rātou ki wēnei tū momo mahi i te mea, ka taea e rātou te torotoro atu nā rātou hoki. Hākoa ngā kōrero tā tēnā, tā tēnā, ka tuhi anuanu ngā tamariki, engari mēnā ka piri atu ki a rātou, ka taea e mātou te whakaatu i tētahi ao āhua whānui ake kia whakatūtūtia e te kaupapa.”
Engari, he aha te whakautu a te Kaunihera o Manukau? Kua tuku pire kia whakakāhoretia i te tuhi anuanu noa iho. E mara, he anga whakamua tēnā? Kore, kore rawa atu. Nō reira, ka tirohia whānuitia e mātou kia kitea mēnā he whakaaro pai atu i te “rākau nui”. Pērā i Te Papa-i-oea, nā rātou i toha pūtea mō te hōtaka Highbury Hiphop, mō ngā momo kanikani, rangi waiata, pūrongo, whakatangi anō hoki mō ngā rangatahi, ko te nuinga o rātou, he Poronīhia.
Tā te hiahia o ngā kaitiaki toa, ka puta mai tēnei hōtaka, kia whakatika i ngā mahi tuhi kōkau. Kotahi rau ngā tamariki i tae atu, ia wiki, ia wiki. Mō ngā tau e whā, i hīpoki ngā rangatahi i nga tuhinga kōkau, tuhinga anuanu hoki, ā, nā rātou hoki i tuhi i ō rātou ake tuhinga anuanu pai. Nā te pai o ēnei mahi ka mīharo te Koro Matua o Papa-i-oea, he pai te kaupapa ki te tini o nga tamariki, pērā i a rātou kua taka ki te hē i te rohe o Highbury.
Tā Josh Wētere, tētahi o ngā kaituhi anuanu ki te pepa, arā, ko te Evening Standard, ko tana whakahīhī ki te kite i āna mahi i runga i ngā pātū o te tāone. “Mēnā i konei ēnei tuhinga i te wā o ōku tamariki he mea nui tērā. Inā, pātai mai rātouMatua nā wai wērā mahi?’. Ā, ko taku whakautu, ‘Nāku.’ ”
Ā, tērā pea, me waea atu a Barry Curtis ki te Kaunihera ā-Rohe o Whāngarei, nā rātou i tautoko i te whakangahau hip-hop i Māunu i tērā tau, i tū ki te taha o te whakakitenga “Whakanuia a Hip Hop Aotearoa”. Kua kitea anō hoki i te kaha o te wairua Māori, me te wairua Pasifika i roto i tēnei whakataetae tuhi anuanu rongorau.
He pātai anāo tāku kia tirohia ki te rere kē o ērā ki ngā whakaaro o Manukau: kia whaina i ngā toa e hoko kēne peita ki ngā tamariki; kia rahi ake ngā whaina ki ngā tohunga tuhi anuanu—me te āhua kei a rātou te pūtea kia utungia; kia whakamana i te kaunihera kia uru atu ki to whenua, ūkui ai i te tuhi anuanu; kia whakanui ake te mana kia haere ngā pirihimana me ngā kaunihera te tirohia, te hopu me te whaina tangata.
Ko tā te pire nei he whakauru mai anō i tētahi atu rōpū, arā, ko ngā pirihimana. E mara—he nui tonu ā rātou mahi. Nā, i runga i tō mātou tautoko i te ture pai atu i ngā ture rorirori nei ka titiro mātou ki ngā āhua ka taea e ngā pirihimana te whakapā atu ki ngā kaituhi anuanu. Nā, i Heretaunga ka kite mātou i tētahi kaupapa, arā, ko Te Ao Mārama, i tīmatahia e te Pirihimana a Sue Guy, o te Rōpū Awhi Rangatahi ki Heretaunga, nā tōna hōhā, horekau he ara hei whāinga mā ngā tohunga tuhi anuanu. I whakarōpū ai ngā pirihimana o Heretaunga i wētahi rangatahi mai i ngā tiriti, ā, ka tuku atu ngā taputapu, papa, peita hoki kia tū ai ngā whakaaturanga e toru. I nāianei, ka whakairihia a rātou papa toi ki Poihākena, ki tō tātou ake Whare Pāremata anō hoki. Tino harikoa te katoa ngā rangatahi me ngā Pirihimana, ā, ka panuihia te Tari o Te Ture, he whakaaturanga tino rawe.
Engari me waihotia e au te kōrero whakamutunga ki te Pirihimana a Sue Guy me tana kī: “I te wā ka ea ō rātau wawata ka manawanui, ka noho pai te hinengaro, e kore taea te aukati i a rātou. I wakawātea e mātou i te wāhi kia taea ai rātou te wero i a rātou anō, kia taea e rātou te whai i tētahi ara kāhore anō kia kitea i tō ratou ao.”
Ko ēnei ngā mahi ka taea mēnā ka whakarewahia ngā painga, ka waihotia ngā whērutanga, ā, tērā pea me titiro a Manukau ki a Heretaunga. Ko Manukau hoki te tāone kua whakarewahia ngā pirihimana mō ā rātau mahi ringa kaha, patu rangatahi anā hoki.
I te pai a Tāmaki-ki-Raro, piki ake ngā takahi i te ture, ā, kei te noho ngoikore, ngākau kore hoki te rohe. Kei Tāmaki-ki-Raro taku rangatira a Tākuta Pita Sharples e mahi ana, ā, kei te whakaatu mai i ngā mahi kua mahia kia rewa ake te tū o ā rātou whānau, ā, he kōrero papai ōna mō ngā mahi a ngā pirihimana e ngākau nui ana ki te tautoko i ngā nōhonga whānau. Ā, koia rā anō tō mātou whakaaro—he pai kē atu te tautoko i ngā tūmanako, i te whiu.
Tini ana ngā mahi pai e mahia ana i ngā tōpito katoa o te motu, pērā i te Whakakitenga Tuhi Anuanu a ngā tohunga Māori, Pasifika hoki kei Ōtautahi. Nā wā rātou mahi ka kī tētahi: “Kua pakū mai ngā tikanga hip-hop ki tēnei whenua. Me aro ake tātou i te mea, koia nei ngā hiahia o tō tātou iwi, ā, nā rātou tonu i kimi. Kua tae ki te wā kia tuwherahia wā tātou hinengaro i te mea he tangi tēnei kia aro ake ki a rātou.”
Kei roto i aku kōrero he karanga kia titiro whānui tātou ki wētahi tikanga hōu, ā, koia rā hoki te karanga o wērā atu o ngā tāngata i Manukau i tēnei wā tonu. Kia titiro whānui, kia rapu i ngā painga, kia titiro ki tua atu o ngā otaota, kia kitea i ngā tino taonga, kia kitea i ngā tau otinga, kia waihotia ngā raruraru. E mārama ana au ki ngā hiahia o te kaunihera ki te whakapai i ngā tiriti engari, kāhore au e whakaae ko te utu ko wā tātou tamariki me ō rātou pūmanawa. E mea ana au nā tātou ēnei tamariki i te mea, e mōhio ana au, tātou katoa hoki, ko ngā tamariki ka ngaua e te pire nei, ko ā tātou rangatahi o te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa.
Tautoko ana te Pāti Māori i te whakahau a te komiti kia kaua te pire nei e whai mana, ā, tautoko anō i ngā whakahau mā te wā kāinga e hanga ngā tikanga whakatikatika, ā, tautoko hoki i te whakaaro kia tau tōtika te mahi. He pai ake tērā i te mahi poka noa i te ture. Kāhore mātou e kite i te pai o te rākau nui, ā ko tā mātou īnoi ki a Manukau kia tau ake te piri ki ngā painga kei ngā tiriti o Tāmaki-ki-Raro. Pai atu tēnei i te hāmene, i te whakaiti, i te whaina, i te mauhere.
Hei kōrero whakamutunga ki ngā mema o te Whare nei, kia haere ki Manukau, kia kite i te tuhi anuanu, e whā mita te teitei, whā tekau mā rima mita te roa. I tuwheratia i tērā tau I te Whare o TelstraClear, ā, nā ngā tohunga tuhi anuanu, nā Otis Frizzell rāua ko Dan Tippett me ngā kaituhi e rima nō Manukau i hanga. E 9 tae atu ki te 36 te pakeke o ngā kaiāwhina. Ko ngā tāngata i whakamanangia, ko ngā toa o Manukau pērā i a Tā Edmund Hillary, David Lange, Hone Waaka, Yvette Corlett, Barbara Kendall, Possum Bourne, Tā Woolf Fisher, me te toa nāna i para te ara hip-hop, arā, ko Phil Fuemana rātou anō kua rere ki tua atu o te mata-hau-ariki. He whakanui i te kaha me te wairua auaha o te iwi o Manukau, ā, he whakaatu i ngā wawata o te tohunga tuhi anuanu a Diva me āna kōrero mō ngā rangatahi o Manukau: “Mēnā ka taea e mātou te whakapiri atu ki a rātou, te whakaatu i tētahi ao āhua whānui ake, āe rā, ka tutuki te kaupapa.”
Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, tēnā tātou katoa e te Whare, tēnā koe, Pita Paraone.
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]
[Greetings, Mr Assistant Speaker, and to us, the House. Just before this bill last came before the House back in 2005, we got an email from a professional graffiti artist known as Diva, who had been doing her graffiti thing legally around South Auckland for the past 5 years.
She said: “Our hearts are for the young people, young men and women of South Auckland who truly have no positive influence, no direction and no vision in life. Rather than putting down everything the youth are interested in, we want to use graffiti as a tool to impart life skills, responsibility and respect in a form they can relate to and be interested in. Kids are going to tag no matter what anyone says but if we can get alongside them, into their lives, and let them see beyond that horizon, then we will achieve something.”
But what does the Manukau City Council do? Put in a bill to ban graffiti! Yeah, man, forward thinking! Not! So we thought we would look around ourselves, to see whether there were better ideas than the “big stick”—like in Palmerston North, for instance, which funded the Highbury Hiphop programme, combining break-dancing, music, rapping, and graffiti art for mainly Polynesian youth.
The programme grew out of a meeting with local owners to deal with tagging, and attracted nearly 100 kids every week. Over the next 4 weeks a team of young people painted over random tagging and graffiti, and created murals with their graffiti art. The programme was so successful that even the mayor was moved to say that the programme had been extremely popular and helped heaps of at-risk kids in Highbury.
One budding graffiti artist, Josh Wētere, told the Evening Standard of his pride in seeing his work on the walls of the town: “It’d be great if it was still here when my kids are around. They’d say, ‘Who did that, dad?’. And I’d say: ‘I did.’ ”
Or maybe Barry Curtis could call the Whāngarei District Council, which sponsored a hip-hop festival last year in Māunu. The festival combined with a travelling exhibition called “Respect Aotearoa: HipHop”, again had a really strong Māori and Pasifika influence and a multimedia graffiti art competition.
Again I ask members to contrast these with Manukau’s intentions: fining shopkeepers for selling spray-cans to kids; massive fines for graffiti artists—like they would have the money to pay; giving council the power to enter private property and remove graffiti; and increased police and council intrusion, surveillance, arrests, and fines.
This bill also introduces another group to the mix: the police. Man, have they not got enough to do already? So because our aim is to try to always promote positive alternatives to what is often seriously dumb legislation, we decided to look around for positive ways in which police can engage with graffiti artists. And down Hastings way, we came across Te Ao Mārama, an initiative pioneered by Constable Sue Guy of Hastings Police Youth Aid, who was frustrated that there was nothing for young talented graffiti artists. Hastings police and some community youth workers got together a group of street kids, got the necessary gear, let them loose with paints and boards, did three big exhibitions, and now some of that artwork is hanging up in Sydney, and in our House of Parliament as well. The kids were stoked, the police were chuffed, and the Ministry of Justice promoted it as a successful youth aid initiative.
But I leave the final word to Constable Sue Guy, who said: “Once the young people realize their potential, gain confidence and self esteem, there is no stopping them. We provide a place for young people to challenge themselves, and give young people a chance to do things that they would not normally experience.”
This is what is possible if you accentuate the positive, instead of always trying to eliminate the negative, and in a city like Manukau, where over-zealous policing has led to an inquiry into the excessive use of force, bringing to light many other cases of police assault on young people, the Hastings experience is certainly worthy of consideration.
Things in South Auckland do not look good, with rising crime, despair, and despondency pervading the community. My leader Dr Pita Sharples has been working behind the scenes in South Auckland, and keeps us updated about the incredible commitment that people are making to improve things for their families. He speaks highly, too, of those officers dedicated to community support. And again, that is what we want to focus on—restoring hope, rather than inflicting penalty.
There are heaps of good things going on all round the country, like the Urbanised Generation Graffiti Art Exhibition in Christchurch, featuring celebrated Māori and Pacific Island artists and their work, about which one person said: “The hip-hop culture has exploded in this country. We must take notice. It’s where our people are at—by choice. It’s time for us to open our minds to it and accept that the exhibition is a cry for attention.”
The various examples I have talked about highlight the motivation provided by fresh eyes, and that is what the people of Manukau are calling out for right now—fresh eyes to look past the pain and search out the potential, gaze past the litter, and see the treasure, and see the solutions rather than the problems. I understand the impulse of the city council to want to clean up the streets, but it should not be at the expense of our kids and their talent, and I say “our” kids because I know, we all know, that it will be Māori and Pasifika youth who will get banged by this bill.
The Māori Party supports the recommendation from the select committee not to pass this bill. We support the recommendation for local solutions, and urge a more positive approach, rather than ad hoc legislation. We see no value in using the big stick, and we urge Manukau City to engage positively with the terrific array of talent in the streets of South Auckland, rather than penalise them with labels, fines, and lock-ups.
Finally, I would encourage all members of this House to go and have a look at Manukau City’s awesome 3-metre-high and 45-metre-long graffiti mural launched last year in the TelestraClear Pacific Centre, designed by graffiti legends Otis Frizzell and Dan Tippet, and painted in collaboration with five local artists aged from 9 to 36. It features the champions of Manukau like Sir Edmund Hillary, David Lange, John Walker, Yvette Corlett, Barbara Kendall, Possum Bourne, Sir Woolf Fisher, and hip-hop pioneer Phil Fuemana— those who soared beyond the horizon. It is a celebration of the talent and creativity of the people of Manukau, and represents the aspirations of Diva, the graffiti artist who says of the youth of Manukau City: “If we can get alongside them, into their lives, and let them see beyond that horizon, then we will achieve something”.
Greetings to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, to all of us of the House, and to you, Pita Paraone.].
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) Link to this
I take this opportunity to take just a short call in this debate. I stand in support of this Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill going through its second reading. I start by using those famous words by Sir Barry Curtis: “I represent New Zealand’s most progressive city, Manukau.” For all of us who have been in his presence and have heard his speeches, those words have a familiar ring.
As a resident of Manurewa, within Manukau City, I know that the Manukau area is often faced with the problem of graffiti. I attended a public meeting at Papakura about it not long after the last election. I can tell members that even politicians cannot escape graffiti; my election signs were affected in such a manner.
I think it is important to place on record that I stand in support of our trying to get rid of, to find a way through, or to minimise this problem. It is a problem, and one that we should all, together, try to resolve with the right solution. I have a few concerns surrounding issues related to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, particularly relating to section 23(4), which states that any person detained for an offence or a suspected offence has a right to refrain from making a statement. I think a particular part of the bill may have a detrimental effect, in that it will result in unnecessary arrests of our young people who may not be involved in that activity. Having said that, I support the idea that those who are caught in the act should be disciplined in some way, and should be primarily responsible for clearing up the problem.
I did say I would take a very short call. I wanted to take the opportunity to place on record my support for those trying to deal with this problem, and to offer every assistance we can in the process. Kia ora.
A party vote was called for on the question,
That the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill be now read a second time.
Ayes 108
- New Zealand Labour 49
- New Zealand National 48
- New Zealand First 7
- United Future 2
- Progressive 1
- Independent 1 (Copeland)
Noes 10
Bill read a second time.