Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) Link to this
I move, That the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill be now read a third time. This bill has been around this Parliament for some little while. Of course, it has taken some time for people to realise the anger and the frustration that the people of Manukau have felt over the years.
I thank all those members of the House who have supported this bill all the way through. I thank my colleague Ross Robertson. I thank William Sio, Pita Paraone from New Zealand First, Phillip Field, and Judith Collins, who has been very helpful in making sure that this bill goes through. Pansy Wong has also helped, and the former Mayor of Wellington has come to the aid of the people of Manukau. In this Parliament we quite often fight and scrap. We mock people who sing and we mock people who are sung about. But with regard to this particular bit of legislation, it is really refreshing to see that people can come and work together for one community.
I thank some people from outside this Parliament for their work in getting this bill to its third reading. I thank Sir Barry Curtis, the former Mayor of Manukau City, who has been absolutely strong and steadfast in his determination to make sure that the community of Manukau has some teeth with which to fight back. I thank one of the new councillors, Daniel Newman. When he was the chair of the community board he made submissions on this bill, and he will be absolutely delighted that it is going through. I also thank the Rev. Mark Beale. What a wonderful person Mark Beale is! He heads the Manukau Beautification Charitable Trust, where people go to get rid of some of the 300,000 tags that Manukau City has each year. He is involved in voluntary work. He gets people working together and I have to say thank you to him.
It is rather interesting that the recommendation of the Local Government and Environment Committee was that this bill should go down the toilet. Well, it ain’t going down the toilet; it will pass into law. It is interesting, though, how this issue affects people. I woke up this morning, read the Dominion Post, and saw that a judge was supporting people in their community to deal with vandalism. This is what this legislation really is. I feel ashamed in some ways that there are people who think that graffiti art on someone’s fence or house is art. Well, it is not. I have to say that of all the Manukau members of Parliament I can recall, only one—Dr Sharples—has been against this bill passing. I believe that he sincerely believes there are other ways of dealing with this; it is just that we have not heard about them yet.
I got a letter today. It is from a non-governmental organisation, and I will not name the organisation, as people will hear when I read from the letter. But it says this, in part, about a break-in to its premises: “The break-in and vandalism of our premises resulted in graffiti being sprayed all over our walls, the carpet and furniture being covered in paint, and files, documents, and equipment being destroyed. The hard drive in the front office had paint poured in it. Some of the files had been urinated on and had faeces on them. It appears to us this was a mindless rage attack, as the only things stolen were two small radio cassette players used by our youth for recording work. At this time the repairs, painting, and replacement is estimated to be in vicinity of $15,000. The vandalism was carried out from the harassment which took place 12 days prior to when our gate padlocks were filled with glue on six occasions, resulting in us having to call locksmiths with bolt cutters to enable the padlock to be removed.” That is from a non-governmental organisation in my electorate—people who are trying to help other people facing difficulty in their lives, who all of a sudden have turned back on them. That is why people feel so annoyed about graffiti. That is why people get so very, very angry. We know—tragically—that a young person was killed when he was out graffitiing one night. That is really very sad, and no one in this House, I think, would believe that anyone should lose their life in that way.
I want to quote something from the report of the Local Government and Environment Committee that I think is very important: “We believe that one way of addressing the promoter’s concerns about the supply of graffiti implements would be to promote a voluntary memorandum of understanding between the Council and retailers regarding the display and storage of spray paints, and possibly restrictions on the sale of these items to persons under 16. The possible advantage of the responsible retailing method over a mandatory lock-up approach is that it provides more flexibility to act appropriately to the particular circumstances of the retailer.” I can say that this Parliament has gone on quite a long way from there, and I think it is very important that we have gone a long way and changed the way we see this issue.
Although graffiti is fairly commonplace in Manukau City, occasionally I see people who come to me and say “I’ve had my place invaded. People have sprayed over the bricks of my house. They have sprayed over the doors. They have bent over my letterbox and broken it.” Quite often, those people are on fixed incomes. They do not have a huge amount of money to get things painted out, or to get people to come and remove the graffiti. Those people are very, very angry. But tomorrow, when they know that this Parliament is doing something about it, they will be pleased. This bill will affect only Manukau City. A Government bill is on the way that will have nationwide implications, but in Manukau people are looking at Manukau. They are looking at what is on their neighbour’s fence, and at what is on their fence, and they want something done.
I will spend the last part of my speech once again thanking all those in this Parliament who have moved so far to help Manukau City—its citizens, its ratepayers, those people who pay rent, and those people who have suffered so much. I also thank once again all those people who have helped to clean up the graffiti—volunteers, church groups, and ordinary people in the community. Manukau is a wonderful community. Some people may think that because it is South Auckland it is not good, but, by golly, I say that the spirit of the people of Manukau is supreme. They have waited a long time. They will be breaking the bottle tops off their milk and celebrating tomorrow.
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) Link to this
I would like to take a call on this bill and endorse every sentiment that George Hawkins has just said in this House. I think that George Hawkins has shown remarkable courage and tenacity in promoting this bill. It was first referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee on 7 December 2005. It is now April 2008. I understand that this is the very first time that a bill has gone to a select committee, been roundly thrown out of the select committee—dissed by the select committee—and survived to end up becoming law, as this bill will become this evening. That has a great deal to do with the tenacity and drive of George Hawkins, and his ability to work with other MPs across the House and to put Manukau City issues first. I congratulate him on that.
When I look at the report from the Local Government and Environment Committee, I see that there are 5½ pages of text about why this is a bad bill.
Chris AuchinvoleI am not joking. There are 3 paragraphs on why it is a good bill, and those paragraphs reflect the views of the National Party and New Zealand First. Those were the two parties that supported this bill and the efforts of George Hawkins. Unfortunately the Government did not support the bill, but George Hawkins just kept on—and I say “Good on George Hawkins!” With him, too, I give my congratulations to the city of Manukau and to the people and ratepayers of Manukau, of whom I am one, who live with this scourge of graffiti. I congratulate the judge—although we should not really bring judges into the debate—whom George Hawkins referred to today, who stood up against these dreadful vandals. I say “Good on him!”, but I say “Bad on the Children’s Commissioner!”, who says that graffiti is art and some sort of legitimate resistance activity.
The people of Manukau City and South Auckland are good people. They are people who care about their environment and they care about their families. In some cases, not all, they are people who do not get a lot of choice in life. They are the people whom George Hawkins talked about: the people on fixed incomes, and the people who often live in situations where they have to watch every single penny. They are often people who do not have expensive burglar alarms or expensive insurance policies. They are people who simply cannot afford anything other than the absolute basics. They need to know that although this bill will not solve all of their problems, it at least sends a message. That message is that this Parliament cares enough to say that enough is enough and that we have had enough of the behaviour that has escalated over many years. It has got to the stage where people have had enough.
Like George Hawkins, I too say that it is very sad that a family in Manurewa lost its child. It is also incredibly sad for the family of the person who is accused in that case. It is extraordinarily sad for the whole area. But I also say that it is about time this Parliament showed leadership. That leadership should be saying that it is not OK to break into the offices of a non-governmental organisation; that it is not OK to graffiti all over someone’s house. That is not art. We have people in my area who graffiti over the footpath. At Kirks Bush in Papakura there is lovely bush but one can go along and find graffiti all over the trees.
There is, and I am happy to show members. That is what we put up with, but why should we? A couple of years ago the police in Papakura took real ownership of this issue and they got the taggers out cleaning up the graffiti. I say “Good on them!”, and the people of Papakura said “Good on them!”. But what happened? Some namby-pamby QC from somewhere or other came waltzing through and decided that that was an infringement on the rights of those taggers. Well, I have some news for her—if she comes anywhere near us again we will talk about infringement of rights. We will talk about the infringement of the rights of people who should be able to live without fear in their own homes, and who should be able to go about their business without having their property destroyed and defaced.
Mr Auchinvole is quite right; it is utter intimidation. It is about saying whose patch it is. Well I have news for those taggers—it is actually our patch. It is the patch of the people of Manukau; it is the patch of the people of Papakura. It is our patch, and I tell them to get out of our patch.
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) Link to this
Kia ora tātou nō reira te Whare, and welcome. In addressing the issue of graffiti and the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill I believe that it is important first of all to acknowledge the individuals who have been instrumental in bringing this legislation to the House. First, I acknowledge the former Mayor of Manukau City Sir Barry Curtis whose fortitude, tenacity, and understanding of what people in the community want drove him to bring this bill forward and to hand it to my colleague the Hon George Hawkins, member of Parliament for Manurewa.
I also acknowledge Mayor Len Brown for continuing the work necessary to ensure this bill continued through the House. It is also important to acknowledge the Manukau City councillors who voted for this bill to continue. I also commend my Manukau colleagues, who have worked tirelessly in bringing this bill before the House—before the people’s House of Parliament—including the honourable member Judith Collins; Pansy Wong; former Deputy Mayor of Manukau and now member of Parliament, Su’a William Sio; Pita Paraone; and Phillip Field. I also welcome the contribution that the honourable member Mark Blumsky, former Mayor of Wellington, has made, because in his capacity as a mayor he has understood the problems and the feelings of the people. I acknowledge those members and thank them for the work they have done. I also acknowledge the Minister of Police, Annette King, and the Hon Phil Goff for the work they have done in bringing in a Government bill that will fit in nicely with the one we will pass today.
There are 300,000-plus incidents of graffiti per annum in Manukau City. I remember well my meeting with the former mayor Sir Barry Curtis over how we should deal with the problem of graffiti. I remember having the first public meeting in Manukau City Council’s White House. The reformed tagger who was invited to participate and to address the meeting was remorseful and contrite, and he realised the misery and distress he had brought to others. Some of those gathered wanted to make their views known, and they did, expressing their grief, their heartache, and the profound sense of loss that they experienced on coming home or waking up to find their fences, bus shelters, street signs, phone boxes, and statutory undertakers such as network rail and educational establishments tagged. It is unacceptable. It is a crime against the conscience of our nation, socially and morally.
I commend in particular George Hawkins, who has brought to the House this bill born of his experience overseeing policing, his service in local government as a former Mayor of Papakura City, and his 18 years here in the House. Like other Manukau members of Parliament he is in touch with what the punters out there want. They want to clean up this eyesore, and the best way to deal with graffiti or tagging is multi-pronged. We need to ensure that the offensive tag is removed within 24 hours to ensure that the fame and power that result from doing graffiti are quickly removed. We need to prosecute the crime vigorously and ensure that the perpetrators are publicly accountable and do community work.
Graffiti is not an easy thing to deal with. In dealing with it, let us accept that no one is to blame but that we are all responsible for this ugly, odious expression of bravado at best, and gangland marking and ill will at worst. Graffiti is like a rabbit warning others that this pile of poo is his own. Graffiti perpetrators are brazenly declaring their contempt for others. What is right and what is wrong comes down to what one can get away with. Having listened intently to the debate at the Committee stage of this bill and the contributions that many members made, I want to put on the table for consideration a proposal that a dedicated antisocial behaviour hotline be established to facilitate education about, and action on, low-level crimes like graffiti. I imagine that the Perito principle applies—that is, 20 percent of the perpetrators do 80 percent of the graffiti.
The ideal, of course, is to be proactive and to continually foster social capital. Social capital was extolled by people like former Prime Ministers Mike Moore and Jim Bolger and is about the propensity to serve others. There are many people out there in the community who are happy to volunteer and work in these areas. Schools, service clubs, and volunteer organisations can be encouraged to adopt certain regions for maintenance and beautification. For, as the tangata whenua say: “Tātou, tātou.” It means: “Together, together.” Together we serve and together we prosper as a community and as a nation.
I have long believed that people have underestimated the effects of tagging on the well-being of our nation and our people. As a country we are known worldwide as being clean and green. Our homeland of the community of Manukau is where New Zealand touches the world. At the last census people from Manukau accounted for themselves into 184 different ethnic groups. When planes touch down in Manukau, passengers see the face of the future. When visitors come to New Zealand they come first to Manukau, and what greets them? Tagging and graffiti. “Clean up Manukau!” has become a war cry for those who work to rub out tagging. This legislation is a start on a long road of doing something to make Manukau and New Zealand beautiful. Sir Paul Reeves said that Manukau is a microcosm of New Zealand today and into the future. So let us make that a future we can be proud of.
Manukau colleagues need to be commended for what they have done, as do the Minister of Police, Annette King, and Phil Goff, because they pushed the Government’s legislation through Cabinet. The legislation, backed by the Stop Tagging Our Place strategy, will see a new offence of tagging and graffiti vandalism added to the Summary Offences Act and will increase fines and/or effective community services. It will ban the sale of spray-cans of paint to those under the age of 18, and shopkeepers will be required to keep spray-cans secured so that people cannot access them without the help of shop staff. Shop staff who fail to keep spray-cans locked away will be subject to fines of up to $1,500. Also, $600 million over 3 years has been allowed for anti-tagging initiatives.
Finally, let me say this: let us make the 300,000 incidences of graffiti per annum in Manukau a thing of the past. Let us move forward together in spirit, strength, and skill to defeat this ugly, odious expression of gangland marking and in-your-face bravado. Tihei mauri ora!
PANSY WONG (National) Link to this
I am delighted to take a short call in this debate on the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill. I was just reflecting on the generosity of the Mayor of Manukau, Len Brown. When he presented the Manukau City Council’s submission on the Government’s johnny-come-lately anti-tagging legislation, he said that he welcomes the anti-tagging law. He really does not mind who champions the cause as long as the city council gets the tools to do the work. I cannot say that that generosity of spirit was shown by the Labour Government towards one of its own. So tonight I take a short call to compliment the Hon George Hawkins, who, with the support of his colleague Ross Robertson, championed this issue, which is so important to the Manukau community, in order to give the community the tools to make sure taggers get the message that the residents have had a gutsful of the disrespect of private property.
The Hon George Hawkins reached out to the other parties in the House, and I am just delighted that our colleague Judith Collins showed her support and worked, together with New Zealand First, to ensure that this bill, even though it was defeated at the select committee, actually managed to find a second life and was tonight thrown a lifeline to become legislation. But we know there is a little sting in the tail, because a Government bill will probably overtake this bill and supersede it. But that did not stop the message getting out there that the Hon George Hawkins would fight for his community and would back the Manukau City Council, because it knows what it is doing. The Labour Government, in election year, has started to listen, and, hopefully, it will listen a lot more, because it has a lot more to listen to.
I want to highlight a few interesting comments made in the report back on the bill by the Labour members of the Local Government and Environment Committee. Those Labour members believe that this bill, which will be passed tonight, is not the right solution, although they hope it will be a catalyst for the implementation of a multifaceted national approach to graffiti. Maybe they foresaw the possibility that a Government bill would be forthcoming. Also, they described graffiti as “culture”. I do not quite subscribe to that view. I think that budding artists who want to tag properties should tag their own property, not somebody else’s property. I think their own property is the only place for them to start their work.
Labour members said also that the Manukau City Council should use other initiatives to develop and expand its urban design initiatives to minimise opportunities for graffiti, as if that were entirely the city council’s problem. The city council has been very proactive in terms of environmental design to minimise crime as well as graffiti, but, ultimately, individuals need to get the message that tagging public property and other property will simply not be tolerated.
So this evening common sense has won out, particularly in election year, but the credit should go to the Hon George Hawkins for his tenacity in staying with this bill and fighting for a cause that is dear to him. It is a pleasure for me, as part of the South Auckland team, to support the passage of this bill.
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) Link to this
With the greatest respect to the Hon George Hawkins, and with the greatest respect to Ross Robertson, Judith Collins, and Pansy Wong, I have never heard so much rubbish spoken in this House in such a short time, in my brief time in this parliamentary debating chamber. The Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill is rubbish. The only reason that political parties are jumping up and down in support of it is that this is election year. They all want to be seen to be doing something about the terrible blight of graffiti seen throughout New Zealand, so they will jump on any measure and pass it. The speakers in the debate have admitted that this bill does not fix the problem, so why on earth are we passing the bill if it will not do that? Inherent in the bill it is obvious that it will not fix the problem; if it would why would we be passing it only for Manukau City? If this were the solution for graffiti, would we not be passing a bill to cover the entire country? We have graffiti in Newmarket too and in Mount Eden, but the collective wisdom of this Parliament, New Zealand First, the National Party, and the Labour Government says we need a bill to rescue Manukau from the plight of graffiti. The reason the bill covers only Manukau is that the MPs in this Parliament know that the bill is not a solution.
We all love George Hawkins—over here we love him more than his own colleagues do. He is an honest and straightforward-talking politician who works hard. So I would like to support his bill because I think he is a good guy, but I have to tell the House that in good conscience I cannot. My first commitment, even beyond my respect for George Hawkins, is a respect for the job of passing good law. George Hawkins knows that this bill is not good law. He has to do it because he is the local MP; the mayor and the council are all agitated, and they want to do something to fix the problem of graffiti. The bill has a solution—stop people buying cans of spray-paint! If people are walking down the street carrying a spray-can looking to use it to make graffiti, then that is against the law. What rubbish! Graffiti is a crime against property. It is a crime but making a new law is not necessary. What is required is to enforce the law that we already have. How hard is that to understand? We must enforce the law that we have, not just in Manukau but right throughout New Zealand. Let us not just sit here and say fine words about how we oppose graffiti, and then go back to our electorates and ask people whether they had heard our speeches, and say we are against graffiti. Let us actually do the thing that would fix the problem. Let us not try to fix the problem by talking about it; let us not try to fix the problem by passing even more laws—especially if they apply to just one blighted district and not the whole country. Let us do the right thing.
Are we agreed in this House that graffiti—the writing with paint on other people’s property and on public property—is a crime? Of course it is a crime. Everyone in this Parliament knows it. I could not believe it when I heard Pansy Wong say we need the tools to fight the problem.
But only in Manukau—I guess they are brown people so we need more tools. I do not know—brown tools! What is going on! We have the tools. It is called the law, as it exists. We have a thing called the police, who are there to enforce the laws. I would much rather the police were out chasing the taggers than chasing me for my newsletters that I am putting out into my electorate telling people what a good MP I am. That would be a proper use of police time. So why do we not unite as a Parliament to fight the scourge of graffiti, because it is disgusting; it is terrifying to have one’s fence, garage door, house walls, or business graffitied endlessly, to go out week after week to repaint it, only to see it graffitied again, and then to complain to the police and have nothing happen. That is the disgusting thing. And then this Parliament comes along with a bill to ban the sale of spray-cans in Manukau—that is our response.
I do not think there is a party in this House—maybe the Māori Party—that has stood firmer for property rights than ACT. Never have we voted to denigrate an individual New Zealander’s property rights. If members think about human freedom, they realise it is all about property rights. We believe it is our job in Parliament, in holding the Government to account, to respect people’s property rights—everyone’s property rights. That is what the problem of graffiti is: we are not empowering our police, and we are not resourcing our police to defend New Zealanders’ property rights. If we want to get tough on graffiti, that is what we do; we do not stand piously in this House passing a law that we know will not work, and passing a law for a particular district for a New Zealand - wide problem simply because that is where the politics lies.
I have heard some of my parliamentary colleagues say in public that ACT does not care about graffiti because we are voting against this bill. Members who have said that know who they are. Those members are shameless and they should be ashamed of themselves. I do not believe they should be ashamed of themselves for how they vote today, because that is their call, but I ask them not to question the people who are voting against this bill, because those members know, just like I know, that this bill is not the answer to the problem. There is an answer to the problem and it is respect for one another and our property, and a court, justice, and police system that enforces that. That is what we should be spending our time on, not this rubbish.
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I just want some clarification. I know there is a speaking order in terms of different bills, and I just want some clarification as to the order for New Zealand First. I know that you said the previous speaker called first, but I have been in this House on a number of occasions where people who have not actually had their voice heard first have been given the call, because of the precedent that has been set in terms of determining the order of speakers.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) Link to this
Thank you Pita Paraone. There is an order and it is agreed, but it is a guide. There are two things playing here. The first is that there is a speaking order and it changes on members’ day, but this one is the same as per normal. The second thing is that people should call. Sometimes on bills people do not call and I am sitting here looking around the Chamber, so I have to weigh up in my mind who calls first and in what order. That is what was playing there. I apologise because I could see you call before and I looked towards you—but it is all yours now.
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) Link to this
Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. Engari i mua i te haere tonu o tēnei kōrero, e tika ana kia tū tēnei ki te tautoko i ngā mihi i mihingia e ētahi ō tātou, ki ngā aituā i pā mai ki runga i ētahi o ngā whānau mai i taku hau kāinga, arā, ko Pakuranga me Howick. Nā reira koutou ngā tauira, ahakoa kua pā mai Te Ringa Kaha o Aituā ki runga i a koutou, ka nui tēnei te aroha, te mihi hoki ki ngā whānau. Kei runga i a koutou te kākahu taratara i tēnei wā, nā reira, e mihi tonu ki a koutou ngā whānau.
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]
[Greetings to you, Madam Assistant Speaker. But before I continue with this address, it is appropriate that I rise in support of the condolences expressed by some of us in regard to the misfortunes suffered by some families in my locality of Pakuranga and Howick. So to you, the students, despite the fact that the mighty hand of misfortune has struck you, there is much love and respect to the families. The barbed cloak is upon you at this time, so a tribute to you in particular, the families.]
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak today to the third reading of the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill. First of all, as I have always done during the course of the debate on this bill, I declare a vested interest. I do so on the basis that I am a resident and a ratepayer of Manukau City, so the consequences of the actions that this bill is all about in some way have an effect on me in terms of meeting the costs of removing the graffiti or the tagging, as it is now commonly known.
Graffiti has existed since ancient times, with examples going back to ancient Greece and the Roman Empire. Graffiti can be anything from simple scratch marks to elaborate wall paintings. In modern times spray-paint and markers have become the most commonly used materials. In most countries, defacing property with graffiti without the property owner’s consent is considered vandalism, which is punishable by law, and New Zealand is no exception.
Sometimes graffiti is employed to communicate social and political messages. To some it is an art form worthy of display in galleries and exhibitions. The public generally frowns upon tags that deface bus stops, trains, buildings, playgrounds, and other public property and, not least of all, private property. The goal of taggers, it seems, is to have as many tags as possible. We have seen the level of graffiti reach epidemic proportions in Manukau City—hence the reason for this bill.
People have commended a number of people for bringing this bill to this House. I want to commend especially the fortitude shown by the former Mayor of Manukau City, Sir Barry Curtis, and his council. But I also want to make the point that when they first initiated this particular kaupapa they notified every MP resident in Auckland at the time. But there was an exception, and that exception is the present member on his feet. I recall during the first reading that I thought it was rather ironic that I seemed to be the only member, other than the sponsor of this bill, to be standing in support of it. However times have changed, and obviously we will see this bill pass into law.
New Zealand First has always called for more law and order, and for that reason we give our support to this bill. We do not accept that tagging is a form of self-expression or art as some people would have us believe but, rather, it is a nuisance and a violation on private property and people’s lives. Time and time again it is ordinary New Zealanders who are expected to pick up the tab for antisocial behaviour. It affects not only property values but also the social well-being of those living in areas that are continually targeted. We have heard earlier speakers this afternoon refer to that. Graffiti once scrawled on walls in ancient Greece and Rome might have been considered art and have had historical significance, but scrawled on someone’s garage or wall in Manukau City, or any other city, it is definitely vandalism, and the perpetrators should be punished appropriately.
Manukau City Council is one council that has decided to do something about this crime, and I for one applaud it. As a consequence, the Government announced in February a national strategy to fight tagging and graffiti vandalism. Some people might say that that is not a consequence of this bill, but that is the view I have. I believe that the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill played a large part in the Government’s new strategy, as the select committee hoped that the bill would be a catalyst for the implementation of a multifaceted national approach to graffiti.
The purpose of this legislation is to minimise the graffiti problem in Manukau City, to deter and penalise offenders, and to provide the council and the police with additional powers to deal with graffiti-associated problems. The bill has been criticised for its inconsistencies with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, for being too piecemeal, and for not being a national solution to this crime. Well, the Government has seen sense and its Stop Tagging Our Place strategy shares similar penalties with those of the Manukau City bill.
We in New Zealand First support this bill and welcome the hard-hitting approach taken by the Government in its national strategy. Just today the Dominion Post has reported a story about a youth who has been locked up for 28 days for tagging, and the judge in that case said that tagging was neither art nor culture but covert criminal behaviour. The previous speaker from ACT made reference to the fact that we already have legislation that could be applied. It seems to me that if the law is applied, then the message the court has delivered to that particular offender perhaps will have some impact on those people who are considering making tagging or graffiti art a form of vandalism.
New Zealand First welcomes this tough stance, and commends the judge for taking this hard-line view. This case should send a clear message to other taggers and graffiti vandals that New Zealanders will no longer tolerate this criminal behaviour. The question now is whether other judges will follow suit and have the courage to reinforce this action. Apart from being an eyesore and a nuisance for those affected by this criminal behaviour, graffiti and tagging are strongly associated with gangs. They are often used as a way of marking territory and, therefore, showing who is boss. Disaffected youth in lower socio-economic areas are likely to be drawn into this gang culture if graffiti is made to look cool and tough. A reason for this is that graffiti has become intertwined with and popularised by the hip-hop culture. Many kids are attracted to gangs because, wrongly, they see them as role models and a way out of their poor neighbourhoods. New Zealand First believes that gangs have become a blight on our society and should be outlawed. Certainly, we view graffiti and tagging crime with the same disdain.
I conclude by acknowledging the work of the member for Manurewa, the Hon George Hawkins, in bringing this bill to this House. The thing about this particular bill is that it comes to this House with every likelihood of its being passed, against the recommendations of the select committee that considered it. I wonder whether, in fact, this is setting a precedent, and giving some hope to those of us who bring bills as private members, to reflect the demand, the call, of our constituents to have a bill put into law. In conclusion, I reaffirm the position that New Zealand First will take on this bill; we will support it.
SUE BRADFORD (Green) Link to this
On behalf of the Green Party I will take a brief call to reiterate that we will continue our position of opposing this bill. I had the privilege of sitting on the Local Government and Environment Committee all those years ago when we heard submissions in Manukau. We heard about the despair, desperation, and anger of many of the people of Manukau, not just of prominent citizens like Sir Barry Curtis, councillors, and others but also of ordinary people who were totally fed up with what was happening in their neighbourhoods every single day of the year. I and the Green Party have enormous sympathy for them. I do not buy into the argument that defacing a local shop, fence, or garage is in any way a form of art that should be cherished and supported, but at the same time I tell the House that the Green Party was part of the vote on that select committee to turn this bill back. It is quite amazing that Parliament has reversed its decision on it.
This is a very odd occasion, on which I find myself in almost total agreement with Mr Rodney Hide from ACT. We do have legislation—we have the Crimes Act—that makes vandalism in its various forms an offence that can be dealt with under the criminal law now. We do not need a new law, and in particular we do not need a new law that carves out one particular local body district of this country and says we will impose a particular criminal law on that one district.
I understand that this legislation is a precursor for a bill that will be nationally applied, but I still think it is a really unfortunate precedent to say that we should pass any kind of criminal legislation that applies to only one part of the country. It reminds me very much of apartheid in South Africa and of other forms of separate application of citizenship. I can see a situation where perhaps we would have a different kind of law to deal with crime in Northland, or in the Kaitāia-Kaikohe district. Would we have a different law that would apply to Porirua or to Fendalton? Do we make different criminal laws for different parts of the country? That was certainly one of the main reasons, I believe, why the majority on the original select committee turned this bill back in the first place. I think that the parties that are supporting this bill tonight are setting a very dangerous precedent, no matter what their opinions are about graffiti.
In relation to graffiti itself, although I do not agree with the opinion that all graffiti around Manukau, or anywhere else, is art—and I do not believe that Cindy Kiro believes that, either—the Green Party does believe that graffiti is a symptom of much deeper problems. It is a symptom of things like social alienation and like poverty, including the generations of poverty that have existed in Manukau City. It is also a symptom of many Māori and Pacific Island young people feeling very alienated from mainstream or upside culture, from education, from our health system, and from employment even in this time of high employment. Many of those young people feel they have no stake in our society, so they turn to gangs and express themselves in ways that the rest of us find, understandably, to be totally abhorrent.
The solution to this issue is not to crack down with heavier laws that apply to taggers but to look for real solutions and real answers. Those answers lie partly in dealing with poverty issues, housing issues, and the reasons that those people feel alienated. The solutions lie partly in changing the education system, so that thousands of young people do not drop out, or are not pushed out, of the education system into nothingness. The answers also lie in providing more opportunities for young people to express themselves through activities, whether through art, sport, or a myriad of other activities, that are more productive for them, and for all of us, than vandalising the neighbours’ fences and shops.
I would encourage this Parliament to think a little more deeply about why we are debating this bill tonight and about why graffiti is such a huge issue in some parts of the country. I congratulate ACT and the Māori Party on joining with the Green Party in opposing this bill, on making a stand for common sense, and on not continuing to demonise young people, and the young people of South Auckland in particular, for something that I believe is a product—often—of their desperation and lack of a stake in our society.
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this
Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker; kia ora tātou; kia ora, Mr Blumsky. I te tuatahi me whai atu au i ngā kōrero i te ahiahi nei mō te hunga kua ngaro atu i te tirohanga kanohi, arā, ngā tamariki tokoono me tō rātou kaiako. Ko ngā kōrero i puta inapō mō taua hīkoi i te awa o Mangatepopo, i Tongariro, he mea ohorere tonu, ā, kua pā mai te aroha me te mamae ki a tātou katoa i te rangi nei. Nō reira, moe mai koutou. Āpiti hono, tātai hono ko te hunga mate ki te hunga mate, āpiti hono, tātai hono ko te hunga ora ki te hunga ora, tēnā anō tātou katoa.
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]
[Greetings to you, Madam Assistant Speaker, and to us all, including you, Mr Blumsky. In the first instance I want to follow up the tributes this afternoon in respect of those who are no longer before us, namely the six young people and their teacher. News about that trek in the Mangatepopo Stream at Tongariro last night was catastrophic and has caused us all such sympathy and pain today. Therefore, to you the departed, rest there. Remain bonded and united in death. To us the living, bound here in life, greetings once again to us all.]
I say from the outset that I enjoyed Mr Rodney Hide’s speech tonight. It was quite to the point and direct about where he was coming from, and I have to say that he had some really valid points to make. I also say that the Māori Party can understand the motivation for having such a bill as the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill. We can understand the feelings of people as they see their homes, paths, and maybe walls painted, but, like the Greens and ACT, we do not believe that this bill will deal with the problem.
The focus of the bill is on putting in place a harsh punishment regime to deal with offenders—measures that will increase the surveillance capacities available to the police and to the Manukau City Council. When all else fails there will be other options, including increasingly intrusive opportunities to arrest and fine offenders. In its entirety this bill targets young people. It prohibits the sale of spray-paint to minors under 18 years of age and requires evidence of age to be revealed, which are measures the Government has willingly picked up in its tagging and graffiti vandalism bill.
It would hardly be news to anyone in this House that tangata whenua will be disproportionately more likely to experience the new suite of options meted out to address youth crime. Let us look at the facts. The report Youth Justice Statistics in New Zealand: 1992 to 2006 shows that Māori youth arrests were more than three times those of Pākehā and twice those of Pacific peoples. Is there likely to be a different situation in Manukau? Hell, no!
Throughout the duration of this debate around graffiti, some brave people have actually dared to raise another view and to look beyond the hysteria and the hype around graffiti to ask what is happening and why. These people have dared to ask questions about the causes for creating graffiti in the first place and about the motivation that results in the reactions we see displayed on city walls. Why do our young people bother to leave behind these embellished autographs? Why do they want to make their mark in order to stake out their turf?
The Children’s Commissioner was one of the people who dared to speak out, and to demonstrate courage in asking the House to look at the widest possible range of processes and policies to manage tagging and graffiti. She encouraged Parliament to think beyond what she called “punitive and restrictive measures” that appear both in the tagging and, we would suggest, in this bill. But what happened? Dr Kiro was immediately censured, with some at the more extreme end of reason even protesting that by taking a broad-brush approach towards understanding graffiti, she may well have signed an arrest warrant for thousands more young people.
Two years ago this House erupted in anger over a similar debate about whether legislation was promoting the punishment of children. At the time of the debate on section 59 of the Crimes Act, the Social Justice Commission of the Anglican Church called for a more just society in which all members were treated equally, respected, and cared for. Its submission made the case, passionately, “for a legal framework that is clear, consistent, passionate, and caring, especially towards the most vulnerable in our society”. This House passed legislation to create a better society as we outlawed the use of physical force against children as a defence in any court, yet today with this bill we have new legislation to authorise entering private property and removing graffiti, to establish a fine of $2,500, to create an offence of carrying a paintbrush—a graffiti implement—and to put in place a path whereby punishment can lead to jail if fines are not paid.
It could have all been quite different. The Local Government and Environment Committee report gave an indication of other options that could have been available. It described the work of the Manukau Beautification Charitable Trust, the 24/7 graffiti clean-up programme of the Christchurch City Council, and the voluntary memoranda of understanding between councils and retailers regarding the display and storage of spray-cans. Just last week we heard about the initiative being pioneered by a Christchurch primary school, Te Rito o te Harakeke, in fighting graffiti with graffiti. The deputy principal of the kura, Ruawhitu Pōkaia, described the need for taking a different approach to dissuade young people from tagging and bombing their site. The school went out and commissioned artists to bomb its school fence, with Mr Pōkaia concluding not only that the exercise was useful in brightening up the school but also that the eventual product of the art became a teaching resource in itself. The fence now inspires questions about the birthplace of our nation, Waitangi, about the manu whenua, and about Ōtakaro, which is known to some as the Avon River. The very name that the kura goes by reminds us of a holistic approach towards our young people. The name is derived, of course, from the well-known waiata, “Hūtia te rito o te harakeke, kei whea te kōmako, e kō?”
[Draw out the centre shoot of the flax, and where is the bellbird now, young one?]
It is a waiata that reminds us that just as the centre of the stem of the flax bush is nurtured and supported by the older leaves, so too our children must be nurtured and supported by their whānau—their siblings, parents, and grandparents.
We have argued consistently throughout this debate, and in more recent debates on tagging, that punishment is not the only answer. We have raised concerns about the vigilante action that has taken place as people have sorted out their own punishments for property crime, and we have laid down the challenge that a restorative justice approach would look at a comprehensive campaign that included those offending being given the responsibility of eradicating their own graffiti and, indeed, of facing the people who had suffered because of their actions. The greatest fear that we have with legislation like this is that it sets up a scenario by which the world can sit back and let the heavy hand of the law intervene. There is, in fact, no call for people to do anything themselves—to get involved in their communities, to empower themselves, or to make a difference to the future. Our co-leader Tariana Turia spoke up for a restorative justice approach and the thought police exploded into righteous fury, condemning her for her comment that we needed to think about the social commentary that graffiti represents, and respond to the underlying concerns around the alienation of young people.
We have been told that another woman who has dared to try a different approach is an unsung community hero—Minnie of Manukau. She gets up very early in the morning at 5 a.m., we are told, to look over her local park in order to care for the environment “for the sake of the little children”, in her words. She has become the official guardian of the community park in Ōtara. She tries to stop the boys from tagging, runs over to catch offenders in the act and marches them off to their parents. As one of the neighbours described her: “Minnie brings good to the hood.” She tells the parents to care for their children and, in doing so, she encourages us all to care for our environment and for each other.
We can all be like Minnie of Manukau, engaging positively with our young people rather than always persisting with legislation and approaches that punish and condemn, and that impose fines and take the approach of “Lock ’em up and destroy all hope.”, especially if all we are doing is being done for Manukau. We in the Māori Party will never agree to knee-jerk - reaction legislation that seeks to criminalise antisocial behaviour, when we all have the opportunities to support our alienated young people and encourage them to find positive ways of participating in and contributing to our communities. We do not need this overreaction and this continually critical, hostile attack on our young. We need to engage with our young. We need to seek solutions. We need to restore hope that we can all nurture our young to grow into the leaders who will help to shape our tomorrow.
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) Link to this
I rise to speak on the third reading of the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill. I join with previous speakers, including, I think, Judith Collins and Pansy Wong, in praising Mr George Hawkins for his tenacity and longstanding support of this bill. I also praise other MPs from the South Auckland area, particularly Dave Hereora, whose work I acknowledge. I acknowledge Ross Robertson’s work. He gave a very fine speech in the House today. I also particularly acknowledge the very good community leadership and role of the former deputy mayor of the city of Manukau, Su’a William Sio, who is sitting next to me. I acknowledge that George and members of the Manukau City Council have worked hard towards getting this bill. I particularly praise the previous mayor, Sir Barry Curtis, for his leadership on this issue, and I also praise the current Mayor, Len Brown.
There was some reference in the speeches to the role of the Local Government and Environment Committee and to the fact that, notwithstanding the ultimate recommendation of the select committee at the time, Parliament is minded to proceed with the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill. I also acknowledge that some members, particularly those opposite, can specialise in the 10-second, half-truth sound bite, or the “glass half-empty and half-truthful” sound bite. However, I think it is important that we acknowledge the conclusion of the majority of the select committee. It clearly acknowledged “the efforts of Manukau City in bringing this matter to Parliament’s attention through this Bill. The committee was assured by the Minister that Manukau would be involved in the ongoing development of future Government initiatives. We are concerned by the spread of unlawful graffiti in New Zealand, and believe that it is an issue that needs addressing in and beyond Manukau City. Although we do not believe that this bill is the right solution, we hope it will be a catalyst to the implementation of a multifaceted national approach to graffiti.”
In terms of a catalyst to a nationwide approach, I pay particular tribute to the team at the Manukau City Council; not just the elected members but the community workers, the community people, and the members of the staff, aided, as they were, by people such as the Hon George Hawkins, Ross Robertson, and other members who represent the city of Manukau. I also want to say, however, that, upon reflection, the Manukau City Council says that notwithstanding the report of the select committee, it wants to get ahead and get on with this local bill. I note a quote from what I think is a very good article. As a Hamilton member, I do not read the Manukau Courier, but—
Perhaps I should, indeed. There is a very good article in the paper and a very nice photo of George Hawkins. The paper gives him great credit for this bill. I have just noticed that there is a quote from the Mayor of Manukau, Len Brown, in which he states he is convinced that local and national legislation is crucial to helping the city of Manukau to get rid of graffiti. He says that city ratepayers pay $1 million a year to get rid of 300,000 tags. That was alluded to earlier in the debate this afternoon. Mr Brown says that if this bill is passed first, a ban on the sale of spray-cans to under 18s would apply to Manukau before anywhere else, and so would new rules around the storage of spray-cans in shops, and other provisions to help fight graffiti. Mr Brown says that the council is finalising an extension to its graffiti strategy that will see a stronger focus on eradication and prevention. In that sense, yes, this Parliament has reflected, and, yes, we are saying to the city of Manukau that we acknowledge that it has introduced a bill, so we should go ahead and enact it. Very quickly behind it, and I think certainly dovetailing with it, will be the nationwide legislation, which is currently before the Law and Order Committee.
As I have said in previous debates in this House, I strongly believe that the legislation that is currently before the Law and Order Committee and the Stop Tagging Our Place (STOP) initiative will dovetail very, very neatly with the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill. As I have said before, and as the select committee itself has done, I strongly applaud the Manukau City Council for its initiative in bringing this bill to the House. I note the very strong leadership and support from the Mayor of Manukau City, Len Brown, in terms of the STOP strategy. In fact, the only people I can hear opposing this Government’s anti-graffiti strategy are the small number of Opposition members. They are the only ones I can hear. I cannot hear the democratically elected members of the Manukau City Council, under the leadership of Len Brown, opposing the STOP strategy. I cannot hear criticism from the Manukau City Council of the nationwide bill. What they hear from me and from others is strong praise for their leadership in getting the show on the road and focusing the nation’s attention on the scourge and the antisocial crime that graffiti is.
As the member of Parliament for Hamilton West, I also must give full credit, as I have done in previous contributions, to my own city council—to the staff and to the councillors—for promoting many positive anti-graffiti strategies, and their strong support, by and large, for the bill. My own city councillors said the bill on its own is not a panacea, is not the total answer. We know that, we acknowledge that, but it is part of a suite of measures that is very important, alongside which goes the bill that we are debating tonight.
The South Auckland members, the Manukau City members, have talked about the strong community support for the bill and the strong community initiatives. I mentioned in an earlier debate on the bill that in Hamilton City 1,600 members of the Latter-day Saints church community, as part of a nationwide day of service, got out and cleaned up tags throughout the city, particularly in the so-called Poets Corner and Five Cross Roads area, but also in parts of my electorate. That was a wonderful example in Hamilton of a church community group showing wonderful community leadership, and, boy, it lifted the morale of the community, which joined in. I give a big bouquet in praise.
That is but one significant example of community buy-in. When I was a member of the select committee, 1 o’clock one the morning I was talking to Māori Wardens and security people from the city of Manukau. They took me around and showed me some of the tags. There are some great community safety programmes, including Māori Wardens, Night Owls—you name it. My good colleague the former deputy mayor of Manukau will certainly attest to that. They are inspirational. These men and women are not on big pay cheques. They just get on and do the work, and I think we owe them a debt of gratitude.
I ask members opposite to please have the glass half-full for once. Let us acknowledge that we are making some profound progress. Let us put cynicism out in the lobby—leave it in the lobby. Let us acknowledge that we are making some really good progress. Let us acknowledge and thank the Manukau City Council and George Hawkins—which Judith Collins did—for their leadership in getting the show on the road. Let us acknowledge that there is some really good Government legislation before the Law and Order Committee at the moment. Let us acknowledge the really wonderful STOP strategy. These are positive things. Let us be positive. I am very, very proud to be part of a Government that has heeded the call of the people and is doing what we can to get a solution to a very serious social issue. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.
MARK BLUMSKY (National) Link to this
In the 1 minute that I have left before we break for dinner I want to comment on the speech I have just heard. The last words that the member for Hamilton West said were that he is proud that he heeded the call. Before that dissertation we heard him asking what everyone had heard—what the country had heard. I just remind the country of what it did hear. It heard that member, Martin Gallagher from Hamilton West, vote against this legislation. I was on the Local Government and Environment Committee with him, and he voted against this legislation. He stood there and said to listen to members on this side of the House and where they stand, but we need to remind everyone listening that he voted against this bill. That was rather hard to pick up in the speech that we have just heard.
The National Party has always supported this bill, right along a path that has been rather tortuous, I would have to say. Guess what? We are not supporting the bill because it is election year; we are supporting it because it sends a message. I will give members that message after dinner.
It is nice to have the chance to speak again on the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill. I see Mr Gallagher leaving the House. [ Interruption] I welcome him back. I took the opportunity before the dinner break to remind Mr Gallagher which way he voted on this bill, and to point out that he did not support it—not that I could tell that from his speech. I tell him that there are no hard feelings. I will be in Hamilton on Friday and Saturday, so I would hate to think he might take personally anything I have said!
National has always supported this bill, and we have done so from the start. Mr Hide made the presumption that we have supported the bill because it is election year; we have actually supported it because we believe graffiti is a very serious issue.
I would suggest to Mr Hawkins that it is not the perfect bill. It is not the bill that National members would have written if we had had the chance. But we have supported it quite simply because the Government needs to be sent a message. We felt that by supporting this local bill we could send the Government a message, and that message is quite simple: the public are absolutely fed up to here with the problem of graffiti. The public are incredibly serious about this issue and about wanting it to be handled now. It is not just the public; every jolly council in the country is having the same problem and wants something done about it now. But the Government was not doing a damn thing.
The Government released a strategy in 2005, which it said was a wonderful strategy, to be completed by the year 2010—its five-step strategy for graffiti. The Government said that it would start the strategy in 2005 and complete it in 2010. Well, that is just not good enough, at all. The public want action, and it was because George Hawkins had brought this local bill to Parliament that we took the opportunity to tell the Government to get off its bloody backside, to sort out the problem, and to sort it out now—2010 ain’t good enough. The Government has to be joking.
I was one of those who sat on the Local Government and Environment Committee, and I heard every submission. I can tell members now that there was heartache and anguish from the submitters. I also took the opportunity to visit the cities of Manukau and Waitakere.
Graffiti is a cancer. It is a cancer that grows. We see one bit of graffiti, then we walk past the next day and see two bits of graffiti, and the next day there is three and four, and it spreads. It spreads like a cancer and, before we know it we accept it, and we do not notice that it has grown. This is bloody dangerous to society, because it affects safety, it affects how people feel, it affects trade—how good business is in those areas—and it affects people’s property. That is just not good enough, and it cannot be tolerated.
It does not happen just in Manukau, and it does not happen just in Waitakere; it happens in the rest of the country. I live in the middle of Wellington City, by a park. A gentleman there has been re-plastering his house. The wall of the house fronts up against the park just outside my place. For 6 months he has had scaffolding there, and he has slowly been re-plastering his house. He finished on the weekend and took the scaffolding down. Can members guess what was there on Monday morning, on the entire wall that he had spent 6 months re-plastering? That is just so cruel. It is so cruel that that man has worked with his hands re-plastering the wall, and then, lo and behold, some hooligans come along, vandalise it, and ruin it for him. Members can imagine the anguish he must feel.
We do not need to put up with that any more. We need to send a message not only to the Government to get off its backside and do something but also to the taggers. We need to say that zero tolerance is where we want to be, and that we will not tolerate any graffiti tagging, at all. We have to make sure that any further legislation coming through Parliament supports local government and gives it the resources it needs to eradicate graffiti, with speed, because we have to eradicate it with speed. There should be zero tolerance. It was fantastic to see that a judge gave a prison sentence to a tagger the other day.
The National Party is proud to support George Hawkins and his efforts with this local bill. I say to the member that he is stubborn and has tenacity. I congratulate him on his endeavours to bring this bill to the House, having had the kickbacks and setbacks that he has had. I congratulate Manukau, and I congratulate Bob Harvey and his wonderful team at Waitakere. Without the volunteers and the support of the councils, the difference would not have been made in those areas. I congratulate George, I wish him luck, and I say to him that we can make a difference in this place, can we not?
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour) Link to this
I briefly endorse all that the Prime Minister and party leaders have said earlier in conveying our deepest sorrows and sympathies to the students, families, school, and community of Elim Christian College in Howick, Manukau City. E ngā mate, haere, haere, haere. May the dark clouds that hover over those families quickly dissipate.
I rise to make a small contribution to the third reading of the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill. Before doing so, I say to members of the House that I am a Manukau resident. I am also a sitting member of Manukau City Council—
Nathan Guy—and I will have resigned from that office when this House returns from the adjournment break in May. I have been the chair of the council’s annual plan committee from 2004 to 2007, and I remember that we have always received a large number of submissions from the community on graffiti. The funding for graffiti reduction was a constant matter of debate in the council meetings. I am aware that Manukau City Council, when it considered whether to approach this House through the Hon George Hawkins, did not make the decision lightly; it made the decision to do so after a long and serious process of consideration, debate, and listening to its community.
When graffiti first hit the streets of South Auckland and Manukau in the 1970s it began with a few tags and scribbles here and there. It was generally considered by the public to be a nuisance. In those days there was an unwritten understanding that certain places were not to be tagged because they were sacred, or tapu. That is no longer the case—that was then. Today I am aware that Manukau City Council spends over $1 million on quick graffiti removal, and community education and prevention. This work is carried out by the Manukau Beautification Charitable Trust and its hard-working volunteers, many of whom are staff. A host of volunteers come from churches, local schools, and other community groups. The Manukau Beautification Charitable Trust is chaired by its hard-working chairman, the Rev. Mark Beale, who travelled overseas at his own expense to learn how we could, from the experience of others overseas, tackle the problem in Manukau. I am aware that Manukau City Council felt that without effective legislation to back those initiatives, the city would be fighting a losing battle. This is the context for the decision we made in 2004, with Sir Barry Curtis as mayor, to promote this bill through the Hon George Hawkins. Now with Len Brown as mayor the council has continued to advocate for this bill to go through Parliament.
I acknowledge that concerns were raised by some in this House, with particular reference to young people. I assure members that this bill is not aimed at curbing the artistic and creative talents of our young people. Aerosol art and the creative talents of our young people are not at issue here. Manukau is the land of the young, the beautiful, and the gifted, and we want all of our young people to aim high. The bill will, in many ways, raise the standard for our young people, and it will reinforce and give strength to the work that the community already does now. It will allow for the penalising of graffiti offenders, and it will provide the council with powers to remove graffiti on private property, and to control the sale of spray-paint in the city. I have also heard some members say that this will not solve the problem—that people who do the tagging will go over to Auckland City and buy their spray-cans there. That could very well happen, which is why there would have initially been reluctance from many in this House about this bill.
I heard earlier my learned colleague across on the opposite side of the House accuse my young and handsome colleague here, Mr Martin Gallagher, of voting against this bill at the select committee stage. That may be so, but Mr Gallagher is someone who shows good leadership in this House. He is part of a Labour-led Government that recognises strong leadership. When Manukau City Council put a stake in the ground and showed this House and this nation what true leadership is about, Martin Gallagher and the Labour-led Government understood and recognised that kind of leadership. This Government has engaged, listened, considered, and then acted swiftly and deliberately to support this bill.
Tonight I acknowledge the Government for supporting this bill; for the launch of the Stop Tagging Our Place strategy; and for its willingness to listen, engage, and understand the aspirations and needs of all of our communities, in particular Manukau City. I acknowledge the Hon George Hawkins for persevering on behalf of the people of Manukau City, and thank all those members who considered and supported this bill. I thank in particular those members who reside in Manukau City for their voice on this issue. I also say to His Worship the Mayor, Len Brown, and the councillors and community board members who may be listening “Good on ya for persevering. You have showed this House and, in particular, members of the House how important it is to listen and engage with our communities and to show good leadership.” The Manukau Beautification Charitable Trust, which is chaired by Rev. Mark Beale, also needs to be acknowledged, as do the churches and schools that day in, day out, have to deal with graffiti. I acknowledge them all and say that tonight we have created history with Manukau City, George Hawkins, and the Labour-led Government by passing this bill.
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) Link to this
Before I begin I too extend and convey condolences to the families for their loss through the tragedy at Tongariro.
I will start by sharing with members this evening the comments made by Judge Adeane, who handed down in court a 28-day sentence to a tagger. He said that “tagging is neither art nor culture but covert, criminal behaviour.” He went on to say “It is a serious crime that destroys property, causes untold misery for ordinary householders and businesses, and costs hundreds of thousands of dollars annually to clean up.” I thought it was appropriate that I preface my contribution with those comments. I have heard from earlier speakers this evening about graffiti being quite a delightful expression of art. Some have described it as being vandalism. I quote my colleague Ross Robertson, who said it was part of an “ugly, odious expression”. I will also mention the comments from the Green member that graffiti, or people who use graffiti, show signs of poverty and alienation.
I suppose that no matter what category one fits into, at the end of the day we all become subjected to being victims of graffiti—whether personally by the stuff being put on our fences or property or by knowing a person who has been a victim of graffiti. I think that describes the web of graffiti and how it affects our community and society. It has become a serious problem. I will also comment on the earlier comments of ACT member Rodney Hide. He said that currently the law is enough to fix the problem and that the police, through the law, are amply armed to fix the problem, and he mentioned the property rights issue.
I will share with that member that about 18 months ago I was invited to a community meeting in the city of Papakura. Graffiti is a real problem within that community. I said to the community that even I was a victim of graffiti. It was not long after the last election that I put up my corflute signs with a handsome picture of me on them—and they got graffitied as well. The community at that stage came up with a plan. It was quite a simple plan. They decided to contribute collectively to helping the police eradicate the problem. They understood that the police, with the legislation, could not do it on their own, so they decided to band together to reinitiate their Neighbourhood Watch schemes and to get involved in the Blue Light programme. They actively found a practical way of assisting the police to do their job. I have to say that the police do a good job but they cannot fix this on their own. Eighteen months down the track, I cannot confirm to the House that the problem is fixed, but at the very least I know that the issue surrounding graffiti has decreased dramatically. That is through a very simple initiative of people banding together and helping out.
I will also make a comment on the statement that Dr Sharples made in relation to the gangs being a part of the solution to the graffiti problem. I say to Dr Sharples that I have two children who go to college. On the way home they get targeted by youth gangs. They target them at a very vulnerable time of the day. They use graffiti as an unfettered tool to try to recruit youths because they understand that graffiti breaks down the very disciplines that are necessary to offset it. The biggest problem with breaking down those disciplines is that it also affects the communication between that child and his or her family. So I do not accept Dr Sharples’ comments that the gangs should be part of the solution. On the other hand, it is my view that they contribute to the problem. I think his comments were quite short-sighted.
We understand that graffiti is a major problem for local councils throughout New Zealand. I acknowledge the work of the current council through Len Brown, but also mention that Sir Barry Curtis was constantly on my back about the issue of graffiti. I understand that he originally sponsored a bill, as well. To that end, I also acknowledge George Hawkins. I have stayed in George Hawkins’ Manurewa electorate and graffiti is a huge problem there and has been ongoing for some time. I commend George for taking the initiative to bring this issue to the fore. I congratulate George for the work he has done. With my other colleagues in South Auckland—Ross Robertson and our new member Su’a William Sio—I acknowledge that graffiti is a problem within the Manukau area and within the greater part of Auckland. We see this bill as an added tool, as added ammunition, to help the community and the police to deal with this problem. Kia ora tātou.
A party vote was called for on the question,
That the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill be now read a third time.
Ayes 109
- New Zealand Labour 49
- New Zealand National 48
- New Zealand First 7
- United Future 2
- Progressive 1
- Independent 2 (Copeland, Field)
Noes 11
Bill read a third time.