GRAFFITI CONTROL (SALE OF GRAFFITI IMPLEMENTS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 31 May 2007. Page 241.)

Ms PORTOLESI (Hartley) (11:24): I rise today on behalf of the government to oppose the member's bill. However, I do acknowledge the member for Fisher's ongoing efforts to reduce vandalism and draw attention to this issue. The member's bill is an attempt to further minimise graffiti, and although the aim of the bill is admirable, the government is concerned that it is unlikely to deter or detect vandals. In fact, the government is concerned that the bill will impose costs on South Australian businesses and consumers without any offsetting benefits.

Among other things, the bill makes it an offence to sell spray paint cans that are not marked with serial numbers and other particulars prescribed by regulation. The member for Fisher's rationale for this provision is that it allows cans to be tracked back to the point of supply and that would help the police and others in monitoring the movement of cans. I can only think of one situation where serial numbers may help to identify vandals and reduce graffiti. If a spray paint can is found near a graffiti site, then it is reasonable to assume that the can was used to mark graffiti. Locating the person who bought the can may, in that situation, help to identify the graffiti vandal, although it would still be difficult to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

In all other circumstances, a serial number would not link a spray paint can or the purchaser of the can to an act of graffiti. Besides which, offenders would soon catch on and dispose of their cans in other ways. Very few cans would be left at graffiti sites and serial numbers would do little to help catch culprits. Even if cans are left near graffiti sites, serial numbers alone will not help. In order to identify who purchased a particular can there must be a link between the serial number and the purchaser. Nothing in the bill requires retailers to link serial numbers with purchaser details. Presumably that requirement will be prescribed by regulation. Moreover, every craft shop, paint shop and hardware store that sells spray paint would have to be linked to a single computer database, otherwise police would have to ring every store in South Australia that sells spray paint to find out who purchased a particular can.

One also has to consider the effect of the proposed requirement on manufacturers. The manufacturers who do not currently imprint cans with serial numbers will have to change their production processes, and that could be very expensive. At the very least, there should be some attempt to quantify the likely cost. If cans are manufactured interstate or overseas, manufacturers may not be willing to change their production processes specifically for South Australian retailers.

Another requirement of the bill is that retailers must store wide-tip marker pens in a securely locked cabinet. This requirement currently applies only to spray paint cans. Wide-tip marker pens are sold by a broad range of shops, including newsagents and supermarkets. Some newsagents, particularly small agents, may choose to stop selling marker pens because they do not have the display cabinets and cannot justify the expense of a new cabinet. Some supermarkets may also stop selling marker pens because customers would not be able to serve themselves. The cost of employing a person to retrieve pens from a secure cabinet may not be worthwhile for such a low value, low margin product.

Another point to consider is that graffiti vandals are known to cut open smaller pens to increase the width of the pen for graffiti purposes. A pen with a very small tip, when cut open, becomes an ideal graffiti tool. Placing restrictions on wide-tip pens may do little to reduce graffiti if vandals can use narrow-tip pens.

Clause 10 of the bill requires retailers of wide-tip marker pens and spray paint cans to record information about the people who purchase these products. The member for Fisher suggests this will make graffiti vandals think twice before buying spray paint or marker pens. The problem with this proposal is that it does nothing to help detect or prevent graffiti. In order to secure a graffiti conviction authorities must show that the offender marked graffiti or carried a graffiti implement without reasonable excuse. The mere fact that a person purchased a marker pen does not prove that the person is a graffiti vandal. A person could show their identification, buy a marker pen and use that pen for marking graffiti. The fact that the shopkeeper has recorded the person's name and address does nothing to link that person to any act of graffiti vandalism. It simply imposes an administrative cost on the business owner.

It might be argued that records, over time, will show a pattern of behaviour. Records might reveal that one person purchased 100 marker pens over a period of 12 months. Police could then follow up and ask questions of the purchaser. There are two problems with this argument. First, graffiti vandals do not typically have the funds to make bulk purchases. It is far more likely that people with a legitimate hobby or business are the ones who make such purchases. It would be a waste of police resources to investigate these people. Secondly, there would have to be some kind of database that links all the newsagents, supermarkets, etcetera, in order for a pattern to emerge, and this would be a very expensive project. For these reasons, the government opposes the bill.

Debate adjourned.