GRAFFITI CONTROL (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 27 March 2012.)

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (17:45): I will do my best to be reasonably brief on this, but there are a few points I would like to put on the record because it is a very important issue. Members would be aware that I moved a bill in this chamber sometime ago, which is quite similar to the government bill we are dealing with here at the moment. I say at the outset that Family First is supportive of the bill—in fact, to be honest, we think that it is well and truly overdue, but we are pleased to see that the government has decided to move this bill.

I would also say that it is worth noting that the Hon. Bob Such in the other place has been a long-term campaigner on this issue, and credit to him for that. I think that Family First is just thrilled to see that the government is actually making a move to put something in place to deal with this really significant problem. It is a major problem in South Australia, and I was astonished when I Googled 'graffiti' to find that the responses at the top of the list were actually programs to assist in creating styled graffiti tags, which is www.graffiticreator.net for anyone who may be interested.

One site contained a photo gallery of graffiti around Melbourne and invited the public to upload photos of graffiti—no name or registration was required, of course. The problem of graffiti is clearly widespread in our City of Adelaide and in our state of South Australia. I believe that people who engage in graffiti are indeed nothing more than vandals. They are people who mark graffiti generally. They operate at night when other people are often at sleep and when the chance of being caught is very slight.

These people frequently operate in gangs, and they carry out basically wanton destruction of property. Ordinary, hardworking people are simply unable to take any measures to prevent a graffiti attack on their property. Perpetrators are, of course, well aware of this and appear to display a sense of invincibility in a sense. The fact is that, in most cases, the offence of marking graffiti is unlikely to be reported to police. Indeed, I am personally aware of a number of people who have been victims of graffiti vandalism themselves and who have in fact not bothered to report it but who have merely dealt with the problem themselves.

If it is reported, of course, it is unlikely that the police will be able to allocate any significant resources to find the culprit, and that is understandable—they have decisions to make as to what they need to pursue and what they simply cannot. Nor is there much chance of finding the offenders after they have left the scene, and the police, quite understandably as I say, have other priorities investigating more serious crimes. I do not want to underplay it because it is of course a serious crime in many ways. It can cause a lot of grief and annoyance for property owners, in particular.

Research by the not-for-profit group Graffiti Hurts has estimated that local governments across Australia spend approximately $260 million annually on graffiti removal, about a quarter of a billion dollars. The City of Onkaparinga here in South Australia budgeted just under $500,000 ($475,000) last financial year for the removal of graffiti. How much cheaper would the council rates be for the people who occupy the City of Onkaparinga if they were not burdened with this extra $500,000 of unnecessary cost?

The money for removal of graffiti comes from the pockets of taxpayers and ratepayers. In addition to the cost of remedial work, there are countless hours contributed by volunteers and property owners. The work by volunteers could be much better spent on constructive projects rather than removing graffiti. This graffiti epidemic is not just a case of kids getting up to a bit of mischief. While the allocation of very significant amounts of money and time have made some improvement in recent years, there are areas where local communities are simply unable to compete with graffiti vandals.

We can all observe that there are some places where graffiti occurs so frequently that it seems pointless to remove it at all. Regrettably the cost of removal is the minor component of the damage done. Anyone who has had their own home or fence vandalised or other property vandalised with graffiti would know the feeling of utter helplessness and vulnerability that results.

Indeed, a close female friend of mine has recently had her car graffitied, which was simply sitting in the quiet street outside her house in what you would consider one of the better suburbs of Adelaide. She woke up one morning to find a big, long black wiggly line along her car. This is a light coloured car and you could not miss it, which was tragic for her. It cost her about $1,800, I understand, to have that whole side of the car resprayed. She was not insured for it, so it was a real nuisance.

Repeated attacks cause significant stress to home owners and property owners in general. Vandals seem to be able to cause damage at will, and there is almost nothing that can be done to prevent an attack. It can be devastating for property owners, as I say, to have spent money and effort in making their properties look attractive only to find that their efforts have been wasted and they must spend more time and effort repainting it and simply repairing this wanton vandalism.

To make matters worse, a repainted surface can be seen as a good base for more graffiti, as we often see on trains and buses in particular. Of course, unpainted brickwork and other natural surfaces are often targeted, and these can be very difficult to remove graffiti from, if at all, and often can never be fully restored. Another serious effect of graffiti is the devaluation of properties in areas where graffiti frequently occurs, even if they are not actually vandalised themselves. That can have serious financial consequences for both homeowners and owners of other commercial or surrounding properties.

We may ask what drives graffiti vandals. Is it that they are in need of something? What particularly drives these people? The offending arises partly out of boredom, we are told. It is largely driven by thrill seeking and a perceived grievance against society at some level. Public memorials are often vandalised these days, and perhaps this indicates a lack of respect for institutions in our society. Graffiti vandals are generally well practised but, of course, since the offending is largely not the subject of criminal charges, there are not significant numbers of repeat offenders convicted.

The Hon. A. Bressington: They are often drug users.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Indeed, that is quite often the case. We need to ask ourselves what sympathy and understanding we have for the offenders who cause such wanton destruction without reason or purpose. There is a view that offenders should not have significant penalties imposed upon them because they are often young and hopefully should grow into useful citizens. I certainly can understand people who espouse that position. Regrettably, though, this view can be seen by offenders as a form of approval of their crimes, so that they do not see their actions as criminal.

There is a perception among graffiti vandals that their work is actually art and therefore beneficial to society, something I disagree with. In all likelihood, this perception is one of the main reasons for the prevalence of graffiti today. I ask that this chamber show leadership in giving a clear indication to the community that graffiti vandalism does not have any approval by this parliament and that it is indeed a serious crime, not just a nuisance that we have to tolerate.

Members will recall that in June of last year I introduced the Graffiti Control (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill. It sought to require a purchaser of spray paint to produce personal identification and the seller to keep a record of the transactions. It also sought to require that upon conviction for an offence of marking graffiti the court must order payment of compensation and also have the opportunity for licence disqualification.

This bill was not generally supported and did not proceed, but obviously members would be aware that it has a number of similarities to the bill that the government has presented today and which is before the council. It would not surprise members to hear that, given that I have moved a bill that is very similar, Family First will certainly be supporting this bill. There are a number of contentious issues in this bill. One in particular is the disqualification of the driver's licence.

It has been argued by some that the punishment does not fit the crime as such. I understand that argument, but we do not believe that that is sufficient reason to oppose the bill. I respect the view that some might have that the punishment should directly match the crime, if I can put it in those terms, but I think this is a particular offence where it is very difficult to get a punishment that actually matches the crime, other than have them remove that particular piece of graffiti—and of course there are provisions for that in this bill.

The other thing in this bill that is worth mentioning is that there is also the requirement for a court to order that compensation be paid. I think that is a clear link between the crime and the actual punishment, which we would support. The driver's licence issue, I think, is somewhat contentious, but I say that I think the government has got it right on balance, because it is prepared to link this particular crime to something that is valued by the person who is doing the crime. I think there is a case to support that particular aspect of the legislation.

The bill presently before the house provides that for a second or subsequent offence a court may disqualify the offender from holding a driver's licence for between one and six months. It follows that for a first offence, even a serious first offence involving multiple counts, the court has no discretion and remains unable to disqualify the offender from holding a driver's licence. The fact remains that almost invariably graffiti vandals are not charged. A state government report this year noted that, in the eight-year period between 2002 and 2009, there were only 920 cases brought before the courts where the major charge was to mark graffiti. Compare that to a 2008-09 survey by the Australian Bureau of Statistics which found that 40 per cent of South Australians perceived that there was a problem with vandalism, graffiti or property damage in their neighbourhood.

Most South Australian offenders brought before the courts in that eight-year period were fined or given a community service order, the amounts of fines averaging $258 for adults and $117 for juveniles. In three cases offenders were imprisoned, but I must say they were obviously at the very, very serious end of the scale. It is clear from the relatively small number of offenders charged and from our own knowledge of the amount of graffiti that occurs that the overwhelming number of offences that occur are not the subject of a police charge. The reason appears to be that offences are generally only reported to the local council so that a clean-up can be arranged. It follows, from those observations, that there must be a very large number of repeat offenders who have yet to be apprehended or even detected.

My view remains that the court should be given the discretion to impose licence disqualifications, as I said, even on first offenders if the magistrate considers this appropriate. This bill is a step in the right direction and it has Family First's support.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.