Legislative Council Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1) 52 1 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Bills Graffiti Control (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill GRAFFITI CONTROL (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL Introduction and First Reading Introduction and First Reading The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD Legislative Council The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (16:40): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Graffiti Control Act 2001. Read a first time. Second Reading Second Reading The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD Legislative Council The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (16:41): I move: That this bill be now read a second time. In moving this bill, I seek to introduce a measure which will take a fairly tough line on graffiti vandalism that, unfortunately, we see all over our great state. Indeed, it is a problem all over Australia and all over the world. I am constantly amazed when we travel within South Australia and you even see graffiti on some of the great monuments of the world. I think it is a terrible blight, and all members, I am sure, would agree with me on that. Family First has taken the view that graffiti tagging is nothing more than property damage and that a strong signal needs to be sent to those who are causing the damage. Indeed, the cost to the community of cleaning up graffiti has been estimated at about $10 million per annum here in our state. The Onkaparinga council alone needs a budget of half a million dollars every year just to deal with this problem—half a million dollars of ratepayers' money in one council alone, every year, to deal with this problem. I begin by acknowledging the tough stance on graffiti taken by the member for Fisher in the other place. I understand that, on four separate occasions now, the member for Fisher has introduced bills on this issue. Each one has been redesigned to deal with particular government objections along the way. He is a consistent and strong campaigner on the issue, and I give him full credit for the work he has done on this issue in recent years. Nevertheless, he has found little traction on this issue in the other place. The approach that I have discussed with him and, indeed, we have devised together is that I should introduce precisely the same bill in this place. With the member for Fisher's consent, therefore, I have appropriated the wording of his bill, and I introduce it here today in identical form. Our hope is that, by doing so, we will ensure that a spotlight remains on the issue and work to ensure that 'taggers', as they are called, are given real and appropriate penalties in order to reduce the prevalence of graffiti, or the scourge of graffiti, we might say, in our society. This bill proposals specific penalties that will be strengthened by the passage of this bill. In particular, it proposes, firstly, that taggers pay for the cost of cleaning up the graffiti themselves, at their own cost. Secondly, they must then do community service cleaning up other graffiti as well. Finally—and this is perhaps the most controversial aspect—they will be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for a period, at the court's discretion. Some have queried with me why we are proposing to disqualify graffiti vandals from driving. The first response I have is that, in doing so, we clearly make it more difficult for offenders to cause damage outside of their immediate vicinity. However, the more central reason is that, for most of these so-called taggers, their car is one of the most important things they own. By disqualifying their licence, we are saying that, if you damage something of value, then we will take something of value off you. I believe that is an important message to send. It teaches the value of property. Indeed, earlier this month, the New South Wales government announced it would also be disqualifying the licences of graffiti vandals, so this is not a unique measure. This is something that is actually happening in Australia's most populous state. Of course, as the mover of this bill, I am very happy for the government to amend it, almost as they see fit. The truth is that we need to do something about this. We have been talking about it for a long, long time in this place and in the other place, and the truth is that really very little has actually been done. So, it is time, I think, as a community, to respond to this situation. The cost alone, I think, compels change, as well as the heartache it causes to people. I put on the record and acknowledge that the government is currently undertaking community consultation on this issue. I applaud that, and it may be that some proposals in this bill can be considered by the government, if their consultation results in legislation. As I say, I am absolutely open to amendments the government may want to make. In the past, it has taken some good ideas and tampered with them and brought back legislation. I do not even mind if that happens in this case. I would just like to see some action. I think there are a lot of people in the community who feel the same way. Finally, I would like to acknowledge the member for Fisher once more. Really, this is his bill. He has done the hard yards in getting it drafted and ready, but because of his incapacity to get a vote in the other place, it is something I can do more easily in this place. I indicate to the members that I will certainly be bringing this to a vote in the coming months, and I look forward to the support of the house. Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.