GRAFFITI CONTROL (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (10:33): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Graffiti Control Act 2001. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (10:33): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Members would be well aware that this has been one of my longstanding hobby-horses. I have tried in this new bill to take into account the opinions expressed to me by the government and others—and I have consulted very widely—and I think this is a reasonable approach to what is still a very costly scourge in our community. Graffiti costs ratepayers and taxpayers millions of dollars, as well as causing inconvenience and not just making areas of Adelaide look untidy but also making people who live in those areas feel uncomfortable.

This bill will require those who sell graffiti items (namely cans, in particular) to be licensed. Persons purchasing such items will have to show ID and details of that information will be kept. The other key provision is that there is written into the bill a requirement that people who deface property through graffiti can be required and, in most cases, will be required, to pay compensation and also be required to clean off graffiti.

There have been some programs in this state that have involved people cleaning off graffiti, but nowhere near to the extent that is needed and certainly not to the extent that is carried out in other states. Victoria, for example, has a very extensive graffiti clean-off program. I have always argued that one of the most effective ways of dealing with graffiti is for offenders to understand the harm and cost they inflict on others and to require offenders to clean off graffiti, not necessarily their own, although that would be ideal, because it might be in a dangerous location. There is plenty of graffiti out there that could be cleaned off by properly supervised groups.

The City of Onkaparinga, in my electorate, spends half a million dollars a year cleaning off graffiti, and we have hundreds of volunteers throughout the state spending their time cleaning off graffiti and the offenders are not required to do it. I do not see the logic in that. So, my bill will address that particular issue.

The bill also provides for issuing an expiation fine because, in some cases, offenders do not get any penalty. I think it is reasonable that, if someone is carrying a graffiti implement in an area that is prescribed by this bill, they can incur an on-the-spot expiation fine of $160.

The last time I tried to introduce what is called a prescribed area, the government said that it was a bit tough because it went beyond schools and railway tracks. Well, I have narrowed it down to school and railway tracks. If someone is close to a railway track—and the distance and all that is specified—or on school grounds between 10pm and 6am carrying graffiti implements, the police will have greater power to search them and any vehicle and also will be able to take action against the offenders for being in those places during those hours. You would have to ask why someone would be carrying graffiti implements on school grounds or on or near a railway track between 10pm and 6am if they do not have anything other than ill-intent directed towards that property or the community.

Those hours have been carefully chosen, based on advice from the New South Wales police. The measures in here have also been canvassed with the Police Association in this state. Anyone who has a legitimate reason to be carrying a can home from a paint shop or supermarket would be well and truly home by 10pm and, in any event, they would not be on a school property or on or near a railway track. This bill also gives the police added search powers in relation to those prescribed areas, and I think that is appropriate because we do not want the police to have their hands tied. Obviously, you need a balance between reasonable search powers and not going over the top in terms of civil liberties.

In essence, the bill is targeting the purchase point to try to eliminate those who have no reasonable or justifiable need for a spray can. It requires provision of ID. It sets out prescribed areas where anyone carrying graffiti implements between 10pm and 6am will be deemed to be committing an offence. It requires the courts to look at the issue of clean-off by offenders and also paying compensation.

The measures up until now have not worked. The police are incredibly frustrated and the community is still angry about what is happening to public and private property. To reinforce the clean-off aspect, a recent article in the Herald Sun reports that graffiti removed under their removal program involving offenders is equal to 25 times the area of the Melbourne Cricket Ground. In the past four years, vandals have been required to clean up graffiti which would cover the Melbourne Cricket Ground 25 times. If they can do it—and it carries a photograph of someone cleaning off graffiti—I believe we should be able to do it here.

Some 178,000 hours have been put in by offenders in Victoria since 2005 in cleaning off graffiti. The saving to the taxpayer just from the clean-off has been in the order of $12.5 million. My question is: if Victoria can do it—and I am not saying they have a perfect system—we should be able to do it here. It is time we stopped allowing this nonsense where people deface and destroy. If they want to graffiti their own property or vehicle, that is up to them, but they should not be allowed to damage community property which is costing us millions of dollars—money that could be spent on facilities for young people and other age groups instead of this silly activity.

If people have an artistic talent, then display it and get approval to do it legitimately. I am not against billboards specifically set aside for people who have talent with aerosol art, but I am strongly against having to use taxpayers' and ratepayers' money to clean off trains and other community property that are covered in graffiti. I commend the bill to the house and urge members to give it their support.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.F. Evans.