House of Assembly Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Motions Graffiti Laws GRAFFITI LAWS The Hon. R.B. SUCH House of Assembly Fisher The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (12:53): I move: That this house calls on the government to adopt more effective anti-graffiti laws and policies. Once again, I have worded it carefully, because otherwise the Attorney will be doing burnouts on his bicycle in anger at any suggestion that the government has not been doing anything. The government has been doing things in relation to dealing with graffiti. Mrs Geraghty House of Assembly Mrs Geraghty: Yes, we have; exactly. We have been doing things. The Hon. R.B. SUCH House of Assembly The Hon. R.B. SUCH: But not enough. In fairness, let us put on the record what the government has done. It has trialled in the south some clean-off measures. Recently, in the north it announced 'detag' and a program called Repay SA which sounds more like something to do with a financial institution but which is targeting adults to do community work as an alternative to a fine or other punishment. The government also has the wheel clamping measure but, as I have indicated in this house before, that does not do much if you do not own a vehicle. Nevertheless, it can be a useful measure. I am saying that the government needs to look at some more effective strategies. I am happy to work with the government. I have introduced three bills. The first one was to tighten up the availability of spray cans and broad felt pens. The government, once again, has tightened up in relation to the selling of cans but there are some loopholes there and, hopefully, I will get to that in a moment. What we have is still a very serious problem. Some people say that it could be worse, that they could be out there robbing banks. Well, that is just a pathetic argument. Once again, some people confuse aspects of graffiti vandalism. Tagging is the graffiti vandal laying their 'memento' (as dogs do), putting their tag. There are people who do 'pieces', which are at a higher level of skill. But, the point is, whether they are tags or pieces—the more colourful, larger aerosol work—it is vandalism if it is done without permission on private or public property. It is not vandalism and it is not illegal, obviously, if people have permission. So, I do not have a problem if people do aerosol art on a fence or a business which the owner is happy to have it on. That is not problem, and I have never suggested that it is. I am quite happy if there are special billboards for people with artistic talent to do aerosol art on them; that is approved and done within the law. We are talking about people who do not respect public or private property. The cost is enormous. In the city of Onkaparinga, in which my electorate sits, the following are the costs for 2006-07: City of Onkaparinga, $573,000; City of Marion, $321,885; City of Holdfast Bay, $486,160; City of Port Adelaide Enfield, $227,700; and City of Salisbury, $315,050. In total, the cost each year of graffiti in South Australia is somewhere between $10 million and $20 million. But the cost goes beyond that, because it helps to destabilise the community, it makes the community look bad, it makes people in the community uncomfortable and it makes them feel insecure and threatened. My argument is that, for those who think graffiti is fine, do it on your own property; do it on your own fence or on your own house. Do not do it, as some people have done, on vehicles on Yorke Peninsula or on trees and private or public property. If it is so good, do it on your own place, on your own fence, or on your own house. What should the government do? The first bill that I put up, as I started to say earlier, was to restrict access to bona fide users. I am not convinced that many people need aerosol cans or broad felt pens. I am not convinced that it is an essential item. In fact, the New South Wales government has been looking at maybe banning cans altogether. A lot of people tell me that that is what the government ought to do. In fairness to the legitimate— Mrs Geraghty interjecting: The Hon. R.B. SUCH House of Assembly The Hon. R.B. SUCH: The broad felt pen is usually used when people are packing their boxes to move electorate or district. Not many people need a pen which is 25 millimetres wide; it has limited use—if that is the point that the member is raising. Mrs Geraghty House of Assembly Mrs Geraghty: I am talking about spray cans. The Hon. R.B. SUCH House of Assembly The Hon. R.B. SUCH: My first bill was designed to allow people, who have a legitimate use in art, craft, or whatever, to get them. I am currently working on some new legislation which would hopefully restrict the outlets that sell those aerosol cans to legitimate users. But, what we find now is that a loophole in the law is allowing people to use, for example, aerosol tyre paint and also shoe cleaner on a stick. I have written to the Attorney about this, but the government needs to close off those particular loopholes which enable the vandals to get access to new material. The second measure I raised was for vandals to clean off graffiti, not necessarily their own. The government did not support that, yet its latest announcement suggests that it is sympathetic to that idea. Debate adjourned. [Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00]