Legislative Review Committee: Graffiti Control (Miscellaneous) Amendment Act

Mr ODENWALDER (Little Para) (11:33): I move:

That the report of the committee, entitled Inquiry into the Operation and Impact of the Graffiti Control (Miscellaneous) Amendment Act 2013 (SA) Amendments to the Graffiti Control Act 2001 (SA), be noted.

The Graffiti Control (Miscellaneous) Amendment Act, which I will refer to from here on in as 'the amending act', inserted section 14 into the Graffiti Control Act by way of the following text:

As soon as practicable after the expiration of 3 years from the commencement of this Act, the Legislative Review Committee must inquire into, consider and report to the Parliament on the operation and impact of this Act, including the effectiveness of sections 10A and 10B of the Graffiti Control Act 2001 (as enacted by this Act) in reducing offending for prescribed graffiti offences (within the meaning of those sections).

The amending act commenced on 3 August 2013. Consequently, the committee was required to conduct the inquiry under the terms of reference set out within the act. On 6 August, we invited members of the public to make submissions to the inquiry. This was published in The Advertiser and we sought submissions.

The committee invited 34 organisations and individuals to make submissions to the inquiry. In the end, we received eight submissions and we held three public hearings into this matter. Respondents to the public consultation included agencies, obviously the government, local government, non-government organisations, retailers' associations and members of the public. The Attorney-General noted during the second reading of the Graffiti Control (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill that the submissions generally supported tougher legislative measures to minimise graffiti vandalism and to deter potential offenders.

He also noted that respondents supported wider programs to reduce incidences of unlawful graffiti, including education and rapid removal. As a result of this public consultation process, the amending act inserted new offences, sentencing options and a new power to seize graffiti implements into the Graffiti Control Act. The new offences introduced in 2013 included:

marking graffiti in a cemetery, public memorial or a place of worship or religious practice;

failure by a retailer to securely store all graffiti implements, extending the obligation from spray cans only;

the sale of a graffiti implement to a minor, extending the obligation from spray cans only; and

supplying a spray can to a minor, not including the sale, which was intended to dissuade persons 18 years of age or above from purchasing spray cans on behalf of younger associates.

Section 4 also notes a number of further matters introduced by the amending act, such as increased maximum penalties for the offences of mark graffiti and carry graffiti implements. Courts were also empowered to order a graffiti offender to participate in the removal of graffiti from any location, amending the provision so that a court was no longer restricted to ordering the removal of the graffiti marked by the offender, and to order a graffiti offender to pay to a person who has removed or obliterated graffiti a reasonable sum for that removal or obliteration.

Police were empowered to seize graffiti implements in the possession of a person in a public place without charge on the basis of a reasonable suspicion that they will be used in contravention of the act. However, perhaps most controversially in relation to a prescribed graffiti offence, where the offence is not a first offence courts were empowered by this act with a discretion to disqualify a graffiti offender from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for between one and six months.

A considerable amount of the committee's time during the course of this inquiry was spent looking at this matter, whether it was a fair measure and, more particularly, whether it was an effective measure in deterring graffiti. The committee heard a lot of evidence that suggested that it had a negligible effect on offending. The committee did conclude, however, that the evidence either way was inconclusive and no recommendation was ultimately made to discard or retain the measure. In any case, it appears to have been very rarely used by the courts, if at all.

Section 5 of the report considers matters of importance, as set out in the submissions received and the evidence heard, including suggested causes of graffiti, finalised graffiti offences, finalisation of new offences since the change of legislation, the power to seize graffiti implements without charge, issues arising as a result of disqualifying graffiti offenders from holding or obtaining a driver's licence and other sentencing options. We also considered the penalties most likely to deter graffiti offending and other programs that may reduce graffiti offending. We heard from several witnesses about various programs interstate and overseas. We also heard about the difficulties in assessing the operation and impact of this act.

As a result of all these submissions and the evidence received, the committee made four recommendations. Recommendation 1 simply notes that there was limited available information upon which the committee could justifiably base findings regarding the operation and impact of the amending act in reducing incidences of prescribed graffiti offending, as defined by the act. As a result, it was recommended that the Attorney-General give consideration to conducting a further review after the passage of six years from the commencement of the act, that is, as soon as practicable on or after 3 August 2019.

Despite recommendation 1, the committee's second recommendation is that consideration be given to increasing the funding available to provide crime prevention and community safety grants for the purposes of reducing incidences of prescribed graffiti offending. The committee accepted evidence to the effect that, whatever the status of the criminal law, it must operate in conjunction with broader strategies that seek to address the causes of graffiti offending.

Thirdly, the committee recommended that consideration be given to identifying ways to increase the number of sites available for the marking of graffiti with lawful authority. The committee considered that this had the potential to reduce incidences of graffiti in the vicinity of the legal space, to improve the quality of work where the content is managed and to improve the safety of participants.

If you go to any of the major cities of the world, you will find areas where this type of activity has long been tolerated and, more recently, has been actively promoted not only as an outlet for potentially criminal activity but also as a tourist attraction and an activity that adds to the vibrancy of a precinct. We see this to a certain extent in Melbourne and parts of Sydney, and we are starting to see it in our own laneways here. In London in particular, this can be clearly seen in places like South Bank, parts of Waterloo and whole artists suburbs like Hackney Wick.

There is always, of course, the perennial argument about whether this type of thing is art or not. I would submit that a large part of it is not, and I am not arguing that the best of it is fine art, but I personally like a lot of it. The best of it takes an enormous amount of skill and practice, and I think it is clear that, while it may not be fine art, it certainly adds to the vibrancy of a precinct when it is done right.

Finally, the committee recommended that consideration be given to providing educational material to learner drivers with respect to all offences which may result in their disqualification or which may result in the imposition of restrictions regarding the use or possession of a motor vehicle. At present, that information is limited to driving offences. The evidence suggested that a proportion of offenders may be completely unaware of the potential for such penalties to apply in relation to graffiti offending.

In conclusion, I want to thank the members of the committee. I want to thank the committee secretary, Mr Matt Balfour, and the committee's research officer, Mr Ben Cranwell, who provided such valuable support during the conduct of this inquiry. I commend the report to the house.

Motion carried.