GRAFFITI VANDALISM

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (12:29): I move:

That this house notes the slow progress in dealing with graffiti vandalism and calls on the state government to be more active in dealing with this blight on our community.

As members would know, this has been an issue of concern as far as my involvement for a long time. I had only been in this parliament a short time when I attended the world conference on graffiti vandalism in Melbourne in 1990. I am not sure that things have improved, in fact I think they have become worse—not as a result of that conference or my attendance. I think the genie was allowed to escape from the bottle and it should have been then that it was jumped on—that is, the genie of graffiti vandalism.

It amazes me that the current and previous governments (and I was a member of the previous government in the earlier stages) have not done much about graffiti vandalism; and it amazes me because of the costings that I have regularly obtained from councils: in the order of $570,000 per annum for the City of Onkaparinga for graffiti vandalism; $320,000 for the City of Marion; $486,000 for the City of Holdfast Bay; $227,000 for the City of Port Adelaide Enfield; and $315,000 for the City of Salisbury (I have rounded off those figures). The list goes on, and when you add it all up, and include the other areas afflicted with graffiti vandalism, you are looking at somewhere between $15 million and $20 million a year in South Australia to clean off graffiti vandalism and deal with the damage it causes.

The Attorney-General recently wrote to me saying that no-one around the world has really been able to deal with this problem. I argue that you will probably never get rid of it totally, but you could do a lot more than what is currently being done. I have tried in this place to introduce clean-off laws or restrict accessibility but I do not seem able to get the government or opposition interested in dealing with this serious problem. Yet there would be outrage, as there should be, if someone went around smashing $20 million worth of windows.

People who come into this city on interstate trains such as the Overland, the Indian Pacific and the Ghan (and I am a frequent user of those) see a side of Adelaide which is pretty ugly. I am not talking about aerosol art—and I distinguish between graffiti vandals and those who have an artistic talent, and I do not have a problem if they legally do murals using aerosols. I am talking about illegal, unauthorised defacing of public and private property. Those people coming into Adelaide on the interstate trains must think, 'Well, some people here don't take much pride in their surroundings', because all the interstate rail lines coming into and going out of Adelaide have been subject to significant graffiti vandalism.

I give the government credit for conducting a trial down south where people were involved in cleaning off graffiti, but whenever there is any suggestion of expanding that program it is always claimed that it is dangerous or, for instance, that people might get hurt. I do not accept that at all. We are not saying—and I have never said—that people should necessarily clean off their own graffiti, because it could be in a dangerous location. However, they could be involved—on a weekend or during their holidays—in cleaning off graffiti; in broad daylight, under supervision, and wearing protective clothing and so on. It is not rocket science to organise that, and it is what the public tell me they want to happen; they want the people who do it to be involved in cleaning off graffiti—preferably in their own time on a weekend or during their holidays.

We seem to have gone to a system (and this does not just apply to graffiti) where there is little accountability for one's actions or behaviour. Everyone wants to blame someone else. We see it in relation to road safety; people want to blame the roads. Most of our roads are fine if you stick to the speed limit. I digress for a moment, but I was reading one of the Victorian papers last night, and someone was saying that the problem with road safety was that people coming off the road hit things. Well, as my late grandfather used to say, the tree or the post never jumped out at any motorist.

We have this mindset now that says if someone is doing graffiti vandalism, for example, it is the fault of the system or it is because they are not achieving at school. I have heard some parents say, 'Well, it's better than them bashing up people.' They are just pathetic excuses that are being offered for this sort of behaviour. Look at the penalties dished out. I know that the Attorney used to cite the one and only graffiti vandal offender who was ordered to clean it off—I think it was in Millicent, and the magistrate that day must have been pretty enlightened.

If you look at the statistics for the five-year period up until 2005—and we could update them, but they have not changed in any significant way—of the 623 cases where graffiti was the major offence and the person was found guilty, only three were ordered to serve a period of detention of any kind, at home or anywhere else; 249 received a fine averaging between $150 and $200; and 95 received no punishment at all. That is hardly any significant punishment.

I accept some of these characters have problems. Some are probably non-achievers; they can only achieve or get notoriety by going out at night and vandalising property because they do not achieve much at any other time. They should get some assistance and help to deal with whatever their problem is, whether it be a learning disability or whatever. However, that is no excuse to avoid any punishment. People need to be accountable for their actions, and our society is far too soft on people who vandalise. I do not agree with people stealing, but I can understand why people steal; I cannot understand why people smash things and vandalise with graffiti.

The argument that is sometimes put forward that these vandals are little kiddies aged 10, 11, 12 and 13 is only partly true; in fact, it is generally untrue. Most of the significant vandals are adults—that has been shown time and again—and, in many cases, they are not people without resources. They have digital cameras to record their vandalism; they carry rope ladders; they carry all sorts of equipment. You will often see them getting around on their little BMX bike late at night, no helmet, backpack full of aerosol cans, going about their business. They wear gloves. Many of them are in their late 20s.

One character convicted recently in Victoria was sent to prison, and there was a big outcry by all the tissue box brigade. I thought the magistrate did a good job in sending him to gaol, because he, along with some mates who had flown in from interstate, had done about $300,000 damage to the rail network. So, they are not the poorest people. They had flown in from interstate and they did at least $300,000 damage to Connex Rail Network with graffiti, plus other damage to other property. The magistrate sentenced one of them to three months' gaol, I think it was. Then, on appeal, some judge, after picking up the tissue box, reduced it to a much shorter period of detention.

So, here is a company trying to run a transport system in Melbourne and $300,000 damage is done to its property, and the person who was responsible for the damage ended up with a small penalty. The argument used for not detaining this person was that he wanted to go overseas to further his career.

Today I withdrew two of my bills on graffiti because the government indicated that it would not support them My plea to the government is that, if I cannot put up the right measures, I encourage the government to put up a better, improved measure; likewise, the opposition. I cannot understand why the government has been inactive on this issue in a way which also puzzles the community and a lot of other commentators. We need a double-barrelled approach that tackles the root cause of some of these issues.

If these people are not achieving at school, then help them to achieve at school and with other problems in their personal life, but deal with the problem. Jeff Tate, the CEO of my council (City of Onkaparinga), says:

Both private property owners and council continue to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on graffiti vandalism.

He goes on to say:

If apprehended, offenders know from experience that more than likely they will only receive a small amount of community service or a minimal fine, this often being the case even if they have re-offended.

He states:

We do not therefore believe that such penalties constitute an adequate deterrent to prospective and repeat offenders...Penalties need to be stronger to ensure that offenders are made accountable for their actions.

I am not the only one who is concerned about this issue; councils are concerned about it. If you look at how much TransAdelaide spends on graffiti vandalism, I think it is approaching $1 million a year. My plea to the government is to get cracking on this, come up with some answers. The New South Wales government is currently examining a proposition to ban aerosol cans. I think you can restrict them, and make people who have a genuine use for them have a permit.

At the moment, the cans are either stolen, which is an issue partly addressed by locking them up, or, because these characters are not necessarily poverty stricken, they can also buy cans. There is a shop in town just off Rundle Mall which has a thriving business. The police check it out, but they say that people are buying it legitimately. What happens is that, if people are under age, they get their mates to buy them, and then out they go to commit more vandalism.

I move this motion, and I hope the government will deal with this issue. It is an issue that really annoys the community. There are thousands and thousands of volunteer hours going into cleaning off graffiti vandalism and millions of dollars going into graffiti vandalism programs—cleaning off, and so on—which could go into useful things in the community, including providing better services and facilities for young people. I commend the motion to the house.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (12:41): It is my pleasure to rise in support of the member for Fisher and his motion in regard to graffiti vandalism. I was quite shocked to learn from his speech not only of the hundreds of thousands of dollars that are being expended by the councils and the electorate that he serves but also of the approximate value of between $15 million and $20 million per year to this state in ensuring that the graffiti vandalism is cleaned up and repaired.

Prior to coming to this place I worked in local government; so every day, seemingly, issues of graffiti vandalism were also brought to my attention in the communities that I served. It was a big problem, particularly in the coastal community of Ardrossan. Even with a dry zone declared in some areas where younger members of the community tended to congregate, the temptation was always, seemingly, to vandalise the public toilets by smashing things and also by using aerosol cans, and it just makes it disgusting. For communities that rely very strongly upon attracting people to improve their economic well being with tourism, seeing those sorts of things is really a turnoff. It makes people not want to come to those areas, and it is an important issue for all of society to deal with.

I know that the Yorke Peninsula District Council, out of complete frustration with the excessive amount of graffiti vandalism that is happening, has decided to issue a reward for information that will lead to the apprehension of these offenders. This council has decided to make $1,000 available. The council does not want to have to make these funds available; it would prefer to use these dollars on providing services and infrastructure to its community, but it is costing them so much per year to repair the damage and to clean up the graffiti vandalism in that area, that it has made a last resort decision in the hope of actually trying to convince the young people who are doing it that the council is serious about it, and that it is about time that they stop doing it, because they will be caught and something will happen.

Too often, as I drive around I see examples of graffiti vandalism—on large advertising signs, where it amazes me how these young people manage to get up there and paint their particular inscriptions. This must cost a fortune to the people who are trying to advertise their businesses and services—

The Hon. R.B. Such: They get up with rope ladders.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Rope ladders, the member for Fisher confirms. But, all of a sudden, their efforts to make sure that they have a product out there that people can see are destroyed by vandalism, often wiping out all of the sign, or at least the half of it that they can reach. As you drive and walk around communities you see examples where fences, windows and walls are vandalised.

The Hon. R.B. Such: Trees.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Trees also. We see it on buses, trains and cars. Even in the community in which I live, there is a person who operates a sand and metal business. Three times he has suffered from young people—known to the police—who have broken in and stolen the yellow line marking paint from his business, and have proceeded to repaint his red utility yellow.

The second time it happened this man came to see me and I could see tears welling up in his eyes. He prides himself on the way he keeps all his vehicles and he had only just had this vehicle returned from being cleaned after the first time, and suddenly it happened again. It is just not good enough. He comes to see me and I talk to the police; we all get frustrated because we know the young people who are doing it, but they still get away with it.

Even while walking in Northgate (which is the suburb in Adelaide in which I stay when parliament is sitting) early yesterday morning, I walked down a different street and came across a roller door on a house that had graffiti painted all over it. The young person who did that might have got their quick fix out of it and thought, 'I've had my 15 seconds of fun for the night,' but they do not think about what they are doing to the people who live in those homes. Those people suddenly might not feel safe in their homes any more. It is a bit like being broken into. When your property is damaged you start to have doubts about the safety of the community in which you live and you think, 'Do I really want to stay here?' That is not what we in South Australia want. We want people to live in their homes safely.

So, I think it is important that the government does whatever it can. I respect the fact that it is not government's role to be all things to all people—I know that—but the government does have a role in providing support and programs that are about educating people on the negatives attached to graffiti vandalism. Certainly the community has a very strong role to play in this regard, and it involves every parent. Parents have to be aware of where their child is. Let us get some controls and reintroduce attitudes to ensure that parents want to know where their kids are, that those kids are doing things that are legally permissible, and that they are not out there with spray paint cans ruining public and private property. What has been happening in this regard is not good enough.

These young people who are committing these crimes know what they are doing. It is a crime; they are making a conscious decision to do this. How society has allowed this to occur is a great frustration for me. Sometimes I think I am such a boring person I should have been born in the 1920s or 1930s when different attitudes to life existed. I am not sure that I am well suited to the modern age.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: I do not know about that. But it frustrates the life out of me—

Mr Pederick interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: The member for Hammond said a foreign word that he should never say again. It frustrates the life out of me to see vandalism occurring everywhere, and it should not be occurring. We all want to live in a safe place, so let us see something done about it. Offenders have to be held responsible. As a minimum, they should be made to clean up the results of their vandalism efforts. Let us get them out there scrubbing with the slowest reacting agent possible so they have to be there for a long time to clean it up. Let us ensure that the people who own these properties get some satisfaction from the fact that when an offender is caught the person concerned has to do something about it. I commend the member for Fisher for his motion, and I certainly hope the house supports it.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (14:48): I rise to commend the member for Fisher for putting forward this motion, because graffiti is a blight on our state—on public and private facilities. I recall several years ago that a volunteer group ran a tourist train in the seat of Goyder from Wallaroo to Bute, and I guess they still do so.

Mr Griffiths: They still do.

Mr PEDERICK: They do, I am advised by the member for Goyder, of whom I will not speak unkindly again. It was very disappointing for the volunteers who operate that train because, when we got there to take our trip on the Saturday, I think it was, we found out that the railcars had all been vandalised by graffiti. The police were on the scene and had a very difficult task rounding up the offenders. It certainly knocks the volunteers in the community who are actually doing something they have a real attraction to. A lot of these people are retired railway people. The train has to operate on a low speed line, and it is quite an enjoyable trip.

Apart from that, you notice graffiti every day in rural areas on grain wagons and passenger railcars and throughout council areas, on pavements, buildings, concrete walls, etc. Perhaps these people could have their energy channelled somewhere else. I know councils spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on this problem. The Rural City of Murray Bridge has just installed a skate park which, hopefully, might eat up the energy of some people. I am not saying that skaters are all graffiti vandals, but it will certainly give them the opportunity for more recreation in utilising this additional facility in Murray Bridge. People certainly need to find ways to keep busy. Under the Graffiti Control Act 2001 you can be fined up to $2,500 or six months in gaol for carrying a graffiti implement or for marking graffiti.

The Hon. R.B. Such: You have to catch them first.

Mr PEDERICK: The member interjects that you have to catch them first. The member for Fisher had a list of hundreds of people who had been fined with basically a slap on the wrist. And here we have the state government that is tough on crime. It will have all the bikies out of this state by Christmas, I would assume, with its tough on crime laws.

Members interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: There is a little bit of jocularity on the other side. I am sure that they are all worried about graffiti. The only way that we can dissuade anyone from doing illegal acts is to fine them appropriately. Hundreds of people have been caught and, obviously, they are not being fined appropriately and the situation is not being addressed.

I commend the work of some volunteers in Murray Bridge. There is a group led by Bob Weir, who has been commended for his action locally. This group goes around cleaning up graffiti. It has all the ideas on how to get rid of unwanted graffiti. Only last Monday morning I flew into my office in Murray Bridge where someone had obviously decided to leave a message for me on the door of my office—I think it had something to do with sex and travel.

Mr Griffiths: Please explain.

Mr PEDERICK: No, that will do for Hansard, I think. My trusty PA advised me—and this may be of assistance for other members in this house; I am sure that members on the other side have been told where to go and how far—that, if you use a bit of Aerogard, it comes off woodwork brilliantly. I have been advised that it does not work as well on concrete. So, keep the Aerogard handy.

I appreciate the assistance of the government in setting up my new office. I have a lovely heritage office in Murray Bridge, and, when these vandals give me unwanted advice, I know where I need to go and I know how far to travel. I commend the motion.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (12:53): I commend the motion of the Hon. Bob Such. I also commend the member for Goyder and the member for Hammond whom I congratulate for bringing some humour and jocularity to this motion. We do smile about this, but it is a pretty serious matter. Earlier in the day, I spoke to another motion that has now been withdrawn, so this is another opportunity. I know the member will not withdraw this motion.

Graffiti does affect us all in many aspects of our lives. I do not believe that we should ever have to get used to living with it, but it certainly seems to be a modern way of life, particularly in the last 10 to 15 years. It has been an issue during the whole time that I have been here. Several members of parliament have campaigned against graffiti, and the member for Fisher is just one. The previous member for Bright was a very strong campaigner. All this, and we still have a serious problem that really gets under our skin.

Why are the offenders doing it? This motion asks the government to do more. The government needs to do more and it needs to be seen to be doing more. Why are these young people—and they are usually young, but not always—doing it? Who are they and how old are they? To solve a problem you need to go right back to the source of the problem; that is, the offenders.

Where do they get the paint from? I buy spray packs (and I am not a graffiti artist, and I never have been, although my son would say that some of the things I paint look like it) because they are a very handy tool to have, particularly when your time is limited and you do a lot of touch-ups and repairs like I do, not only in the house but also on the farm. How do they get these spray packs? In the supermarket, they are kept locked behind a gate. You see them through the mesh and, if you want one, you go to the attendant, they unlock it, take the can out and lock the gate again.

So, what is happening? Is somebody buying the paint for these people and supplying them? There ought to be a trace-back system in this situation. The cans ought to be marked so that, when they are seen in the trash, we know where they come from and who sold the packs to them. That way, we might actually start to solve the problem.

The second way this affects everybody's life is people's private assets, whether it be their homes, their fences, their cars or their boats. It also affects commercial premises. There is nothing worse than seeing a beautiful new office with all its plate glass across the front scratched with a glass cutter, a diamond cutter or even a diamond ring. It is just ridiculous and defies anybody's logic. What sort of homes do they come from? Why are they doing this?

As members have just said, spray painting on a roller door is extremely difficult to get off because it is not a hard surface. It can cause so much damage, particularly when a car is spray-painted. I know that we are becoming very much a society of haves and have-nots, but I am afraid that the have-nots use this way to express their frustration of why they have not been so fortunate to own this smart BMW motor car or Harley motorbike. Yes, they love them, but is this their way of saying, 'Hang on; remember me. What about us?' It is a problem for society, and we need to address it.

I think that what mainly affects us is the graffiti on community and government assets, particularly schools in our northern and north-eastern suburbs, where the amount of graffiti, scratched and broken windows and painted fences, is a disgrace. What sort of example is the government showing to students at these schools when it leaves the graffiti there? What sort of example is that? It tells them that it is okay, that it is a way of expressing themselves and that they can have a message and paint it on somebody's fence.

I believe that it should be government policy instantly to remove all graffiti from all government assets, particularly schools. It should be removed the day after it has been put there. I am sure that if more were done to remove graffiti, or at least paint it out if it cannot be removed, it would nullify a lot of the effects these young ones have in putting it there in the first place.

What happens when the police catch these people? I am sure that the police know who they are. You do not paint a graffiti mural in five seconds. People must see them and know that they are doing it. I am sure that, out of frustration, the police think, 'What is the use? We know who it is. Hello, Jimmy, are you are at it again? Why are you doing this?' What do they do? What happens? Hit him with a feather or make a threat. What else happens? Nothing, because they know that Jimmy comes from a dysfunctional home (incidentally, Jimmy is a fictional person). We really have to empower our police force to—

The Hon. J.M. Rankine: Is Jimmy your friend?

Mr VENNING: Jimmy is always my friend. I have lots of Jimmys who are friends. I am lucky that I come from a privileged past but, if I had been in another life, I could have been like that. It is all very well for us to cast aspersions on anybody else. I can often say, 'There but for the grace of God go I.' It is all very well for us in this place to ask why they are doing it but, if we were living in those sorts of conditions, we might be there, too. The problem of graffiti is much wider than we have discussed today.

I am particularly annoyed about our trains. I travelled on the train last Monday. For the first time, I travelled to my electorate on a train. I got on an express train to Gawler, and a member of my staff picked me up in Gawler and took me onto Tanunda. What a shame I could not catch the train all the way, because the line goes on, but that is another debate for another day.

I was there in half an hour, and it was good. Everything was positive. I read the paper on the train, and I thought, 'This is good. I should do it more often,' but you could not see out of the window. The ones that were not covered over with a heavy film were deeply scratched and etched. It really breaks my heart.

Debate adjourned.

[Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00]