Gisborne stonemasons welcome plaque rule change, call for clearer ‘offensive’ image guidance

Gisborne families no longer have to limit the size of artwork on headstones and memorials. Photo / Zoe Mills

Families no longer have to limit the size of artwork on headstones and memorials.

The Gisborne District Council clause had limited the size of imagery on monuments to 240mm x 240mm. It was introduced last year after concerns about disruptive behaviour and offensive imagery in cemeteries.

Gareth James Porter, a director at monument maker Bay Stonecraft, said large-scale photographs of loved ones had become a popular choice for memorials.

“Clearly, people want to personalise memorials. Clearly, there’s something to be gained from having images on them, having creativity and having personalisation.”

However, Porter said the council had been focusing on “the wrong kind of issue” when the clause had been introduced.

At the time of the clause’s enforcement last year, he said there had been some “ruckus” at cemeteries involving gang members.

“Just by making an offensive image smaller, the image is still there,” Porter said.

The Gisborne District Council (GDC) ran a consultation between March 17 and March 31.

Submissions argued the size limit was “inconsistent with standard plaque sizes” (360mm x 230mm). The “restriction limits the ability to express individuality, identity and cultural diversity in memorial design”.

All four submissions voted to remove the clause, and it was ultimately removed by the council at a meeting last week.

Colin Duffy, another director at Bay Stonecraft, said it was “a good response” from the council, but further clarification was needed on what was considered “offensive”.

He explained “edge cases” – including indirect gang symbolism – were causing the stonemason’s uncertainty.

Colin Duffy from Bay Stonecraft said Gisborne District Council's vote to remove the clause was a "good response". Photo / Zoe Mills

Gang insignia is banned on new memorials after the Gangs Act 2024 came into force, but older memorials cannot be altered.

“They were finding edge cases where they were like, well, this isn’t a gang patch. This is just a picture of a dog that I like. I mean, it’s clear to me what their intention was,” Porter said.

Duffy said having to submit images for approval was “a bit of admin”.

“It’s a little bit stressful when I have a customer that I think that this might be on the cusp of being offensive.”

“Offensive” designs are outlined in Clause 26, which includes gang insignia, hate speech and images associated with violence.

Michele Frey, council director of livable communities for the GDC, said: “[The GDC recognises] that the bylaw cannot list every design that could be considered offensive, as this depends on the specific wording, imagery and context of each proposed monument.”

Porter and Duffy want better communication from the council in the future when considering imagery that could be on the cusp of being offensive.

“I’m happy as long as those problems aren’t on me or the staff that work here,” Porter said.

“… The council should take responsibility for it."

Frey wants stonemasons to contact the council early when dealing with uncertain cases. The council was also developing a cemetery guide that would give “more practical guidance”.

“We plan to work with local stonemasons as part of that process.”