HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-03-14 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

GRAFFITI CONTROL (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 1 March 2012.)

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (16:44): I indicate that I will be the lead speaker on behalf of the opposition for the Graffiti Control (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill and, further, that, subject to some amendments, which have been tabled in my name and which I will refer to shortly, we will be supporting this bill. This is another bill which was introduced last year. It had been informed by consultation in February and March that year. We were not privy to any of the 49 submissions that were presented on a discussion paper by the government, but ultimately we had access to them through freedom of information.

I will not repeat my concern about the government's practice, which has been to generally make it fairly difficult for the opposition to have access to submissions on bills. I thought that there was a little window of brilliance on a recent bill when the Attorney-General put all the submissions on a website and we were able to view them. I recommended to him that he follow that practice with other bills, and he may do so; we are ever hopeful. This bill was introduced last year before the light bulb moment that he had about openness and transparency, so we had to go through the freedom of information process.

This bill will take the opposition a little time to outline. I suppose graffiti is seen by members of the public to be relatively minor in the great spectrum of offences, and it is. Clearly, we are not talking about armed robbery or treason or murder or any of the serious offences that are the blight of our community, but what is so important about this offence is that it is so prolific.

Rudy Giuliani, a former mayor of New York, once said that, if you can clean up graffiti, you can clean up serious crime in a city, and he made it part of his mantra, when running for the mayoralty of New York, that he would make the commitment to clean up New York. Indeed, even serious crime under his reign significantly decreased with this approach. So, you start with the lowest level of public offence and social disorder, and you clean it up, and you bring back pride and respect in the community for the person and property within that community, and you make a difference.

I will spend a little time on this. Graffiti is an offence which touches the lives of many people and their families—whether offender or victim—and which can have some serious social consequences if it is allowed to be rampant in a community. Under the Graffiti Control Act, between 1 February 2002 and 31 December 2009, 33,317 offences were committed; 78 per cent of the offenders apprehended between those years were once-off offenders; and only 1 per cent of the offenders had five or more graffiti apprehensions between that period. I make the point that recidivists in this area are a minor component; and we are dealing with a minor number of people, very significantly in the younger age group, where there has been a problem, so it is not unreasonable that the government would try and strengthen our approach to how this is managed. We do not disapprove of that.

I think that there are a number aspects that have also been enhanced as a result of significant events. One is that, with the advance of the invention of cans of spray paint, which are the offending instrument in the Graffiti Control Act, it is proposed to be expanded to graffiti implements. That is to be prescribed by a class by regulation. I will have something to say about that in a moment. There is a very significant doubling of penalties. I do not think I need to traverse the government's objective there. They clearly wish to use it as a deterrent.

They are introducing a number of other penalties for offences, including supplying a prescribed graffiti implement to a minor, introducing as an offence the advertising of a graffiti implement, and introducing a specific higher penalty for making graffiti on or within a cemetery, a public memorial, or a place of worship or religious practice.

I will add a comment on that aspect. There have sadly been some people who have broken into and caused significant damage and acts of woeful disrespect to public memorials and cemeteries in recent years. I can recall a significant graffiti on the memorial on North Terrace which attracted the ire of the community, not surprisingly. Damage has been done to cemeteries. I think I mentioned in another bill in this place this week that community service orders will be undertaken at West Terrace cemetery for the maintenance of graves.

This aspect is also important here because it is part of the objective of the government—and I think it is a good one—to introduce reparation by offenders. As part of that exercise I think that when we are dealing with places of memorial there should be some attempt to ensure that the offender does act to remedy their damage. It is part of the process of reinforcing that this is unacceptable in the community and that this parliament holds considerable contempt for those who undertake that practice.

There are also some more novel approaches in relation to extending a learners or provisional licence permits for up to six months or disqualifying a person from holding a licence. It is fair to say that this is an offence within the realm of the younger part of our community. They hold dear a drivers licence, so there are some aspects of this we think are good. We think the government have got a bit too far, but I will refer to that shortly.

There is also the allowance for the police to temporarily confiscate graffiti implements in the possession of a person in a public place if the officer reasonably suspects the implement has or may be used in contravention of the Graffiti Control Act 2001.

The Hon. Bob Such, the member for Fisher, introduced back in 2010 a bill to allow courts to order compensation to be paid by graffiti offenders for removal costs, participation in graffiti removal programs for offenders, a ban on the sale of spray cans to minors, and drivers licence disqualification—all areas which are in slightly different ways covered in this bill. However, the member for Fisher had gone further than this bill in covering some aspects, including a licensing regime for various businesses and the like. The government has not picked that option.

We would agree with the government that undertaking a licensing regime for businesses, keeping a record of all transactions, is going to be overly bureaucratic, if that was their reason for not pursuing it, and if it was we would agree with it. Whilst we have not heard from the member for Fisher on this debate at this stage (doubtless we will), he may advocate a very good reason why it should be reconsidered; but we are not in the business of being oppressive to businesses in the sense of their business management but also in providing for search powers for prescribed areas and also for an offender register. Tighten this up, by all means: it is prolific, it is anti-social and it is conduct which is unacceptable, but we think the regimes otherwise are taking it a bit further.

Can I just refer to the areas of concern. Prescribed graffiti implements: we suggest that the categorisation of graffiti implements to be prescribed by regulation is not acceptable. Any business selling graffiti implements would need to keep those items secure and have adequate procedures in place to check the age of consumers. For a large number of classes of implement prescribed, it would create an onerous situation for businesses. Whereas current provisions apply to any business selling spray cans, the expanded provisions may, for example, apply to any business selling wide tipped markers.

I am not sure how long it has been since the Attorney-General or other members of the house have been in a children's toy shop, but I have had recent reason to attend one or two. They have a magnificent array of different equipment for children these days, which is fantastic. In the course of inspecting appropriate presents for my grandchildren, I found that large, thick markers are very popular. Unlike the Derwent pencils that we used to love and buy in boxes of 50 or 60, if you were really lucky—my grandparents would only give me a box of six or 12, which was a bit ordinary I thought—the thing today is not to have the Derwent pencils or the skinny little textas like we used to get that would run out and you would have to dip them in water to keep them going, there is none of that now, they get the great big, fat textas, and I have observed some children mark their parents' walls with them with gay abandon. So, they are a bit of a dangerous weapon in the wrong hands, especially a four year old's hands.

What we do not want to do is create a level of regulation, in the good intention of capturing those who are going to be destructive in a graffiti sense, with innocent children and many retail outlets that are providing, not weapons of destruction but weapons of education, useful implements in that regard. I am happy to move with the times and understand that there are changes and very inventive ways in which some young people will use particular equipment to be destructive in a social sense and create graffiti, so we need to be much more prescriptive in the legislation to deal with that.

I will foreshadow an amendment which will define a prescribed graffiti implement as a can of spray paint or a graffiti implement designed or modified to produce a mark that, one, is not readily removable by wiping or by use of water or detergent, and two, is more than 15 millimetres wide. Let me say, that could still, innocently, catch the four year old or the grandparent buying a big texta for the four year old, but we are hoping to at least narrow this down to make sure that every poor little toy shop owner, and I am sure they have not been consulted about this bill, would be inadvertently caught. The restricted display provisions of the Graffiti Control Act will also apply to these implements. The police commissioner's submission noted that:

Restricting the display of graffiti implements may place unnecessary restrictions on businesses and will be difficult to police. The proposal cannot be supported without further explanation.

So, at this stage we have the police commissioner on side with us on that. As for the doubling of penalties, again the commissioner of police has weighed in on this. The opposition feels that the doubling of penalties in itself will not necessarily double the penalty given to the offender. The courts maintain the discretion to set appropriate penalties for the offence. Again, the police commissioner says:

Increasing the penalty to act as a further deterrent is not justified on the figures cited in the discussion paper since the majority of individuals were apprehended only once. A greater focus on compensation in lieu of increased penalties is the preferred option.

I am a strong advocate of the view that penalties in themselves are not the deterrent. It is the fear that an offender is going to be caught that is the greatest deterrent anyone has to distract them from undertaking that course of conduct. In any event, the police commissioner is on our side in that regard, so we feel that is probably excessive for an extremely small number in the community. Other submissions to the consultation also question the evidence behind the increase in penalties.

There is little data presented. Perhaps the minister could outline something further; it was not evident from his second reading contribution on this, remembering that the data in the discussion paper had identified that the average fine imposed by courts on adults convicted of graffiti offences was $258 and $117 for juveniles. This bill proposes up to a year of imprisonment and fines of $2,500 and $5,000, etc. Increasing these limits, the discretion will still be there. It relates to a very small number of people. It seems that the general consensus in the community is that this is excessive.

Regarding the sale and supply of graffiti implements, I think I have outlined the concern we have about the massive higher penalties for this. I see the government's objective here: it is not just a question of keeping a check on those who might perform the act of graffiti but, if we are going to be serious about them being in the possession of implements, then let us also make sure that the suppliers are caught if they were to really aid and abet this type of conduct by supplying the equipment.

However, there is a very significant obligation then on the suppliers to really protect themselves against unfair inclusion into this or being swept into this. The only defences to offences of supplying graffiti implements are: the person reasonably assumed that, or made attempts to determine that, the person is over 18 years old; the minor used fake identification; or the defendant can prove that they believed on reasonable grounds that the provision of the implement was for a lawful purpose. Proving a reasonable belief of lawful purpose may be a difficult matter.

Here I have my most impressive ally in the opposition's approach to this in which we do say there is really a burdensome obligation placed on some retailers in this regard. Here is what the then families and communities minister, the Hon. Jennifer Rankine, said:

Such a provision will likely also place a significant and unjust imposition on retailers who would likely grapple with the complexity of determining 'a graffiti implement'. In addition, such restriction of supply may send a message to the general community that all minors are potential offenders and cannot be trusted to purchase and use anything that makes a mark.

I thought it would be a long time before I would welcome the comments of the then minister for families and communities, the Hon. Jennifer Rankine, but I do thank her for making that contribution. It is a sensible submission, which I should not be alarmed or surprised by. I am just grateful for it because, on this occasion, I agree with her wholeheartedly.

I have made comment about the importance of respecting public memorials, cemeteries and places of worship. The public expects that we do impose a significantly higher penalty for any desecration of these graves. There are special offences as well for destruction but in particular here we are talking about the graffiti aspect.

There is compensation and participation in the graffiti removal programs. As I have said, the courts still have discretion to impose a penalty of participation in graffiti removal programs under the supervision of 'an appropriate authority' and 'if a suitable program exists'. It makes provision for alternative requirements, for the offender to pay compensation to the owner or occupier of a property, or for a person to remove graffiti or cause the graffiti to be removed. This is a widely supported approach and we agree with it.

On the extension of the provisional or learner's licence or licence disqualification, a court may, in addition to any other penalty, impose an extension of a provisional or learner's licence by between one and six months. Alternatively, the court may disqualify a person from holding a driver's licence for between one and six months. There is no requirement for the person's offending behaviour to have any connection with their driving record or use of vehicles. Penalties are more credible when there is a clear link between the punishment and the offence.

Licence disqualification may also inhibit the rehabilitation of the offender by limiting their ability to attend school, work or other community service. The court may benefit from having more discretion with the conditions placed on a person's motor vehicle use, such as curfews and other conditions of use. At present, the Criminal Law (Clamping, Impounding and Forfeiture of Vehicles) Act 2007 allows an offender's vehicle to be clamped and impounded for up to 28 days, or up to 90 days with a court order, or forfeited for a range of offences, including graffiti offences. There is already considerable power available to the courts at this time.

Finally, the bill provides for the police to confiscate prescribed graffiti implements where the officer reasonably suspects that the implement has been or may be used in contravention of the act. The fact that an item can be used for a purpose is likely to meet the test of 'may be used' as an item. We think that suspicion that an item 'will be used' is a more appropriate threshold.

In addition, this provision uses the term 'reasonably suspects' rather than 'suspects on reasonable grounds'. The first relates to whether it is reasonable for that person to suspect something on the basis of their subjective view. The second is more objectively based on what would be reasonable to the ordinary person. Indeed, the defence in clause 8 in supplying a graffiti implement to a minor uses the objective 'suspects on reasonable grounds' test. It is the opposition's view that this should also apply for the police confiscation aspect.

The bill places restrictions based on age rather than propensity to offend, such as the restriction on sale of implements to minors. The Office for Youth's submission in this regard calls for, 'Measures [to be] put in place to protect young people against discrimination or wrongful charges.'

The submissions were quite comprehensive. The government seems to have acceded to the consultation process to some degree, but in major areas it has not. The opposition has been as generous as we can be in supporting the government in this important area. To deal with this effectively as we can, we propose the following amendments: first, the removal of provisions related to driver's licence disqualification and penalties from the bill; secondly, to require suspicion on reasonable grounds as the basis for confiscation of implements; thirdly, to provide that prescribed classes of graffiti implements be named in the act rather than by regulation; and, fourthly, not to allow a lawful purpose for supply of a graffiti implement to be prescribed by regulation.

I think that covers the amendments that have been prepared. As quickly as I can, I will advise the committee where they apply in each clause. I will indicate that the first of those relates to the defining of prescribed classes of graffiti implements in the bill by definition, which will be amendment No. 1, and I will try to guide the committee as quickly as I can, Madam Speaker, as to where the others are.

I think that the Attorney will have also had only a quick look at the amendments. They have been tabled only this afternoon, and so I will try to assist as quickly as possible. I think that I have identified where the areas of concern are. I do not propose in committee to repeat a lot of that, but I am happy, of course, to answer any questions from the Attorney on that as we proceed.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (17:10): I am delighted to see this bill before the house. I would use a racing term. I do not know a lot about racing and I do not want people to take this the wrong way, but I think that it is 'graffiti control bill by such out of rau'! I do not want people to take that the wrong way or there is no implied unusual behaviour, but I just make the point that I have been in here over 20 years and I have introduced five private members' bills and, I think, three motions relating to graffiti since I attended the World Graffiti Conference in Melbourne in 1990.

Members need to recall that graffiti vandalism costs South Australia a minimum of $12 million a year. I write to councils and other authorities regularly and ask them. I will just give a couple of quick examples. These are figures from the end of 2010: Adelaide City Council, $409,060 for graffiti only, other vandalism adds up to $780,697; City of Salisbury, graffiti only, $358,258; City of Playford, $280,000, graffiti only; City of Onkaparinga, $472,000; and the City of West Torrens, $130,000. I could list them all but that gives you an example of the seriousness of this issue.

Some people seem to think that graffiti is just young people having a bit of fun. Well, I can tell you that a lot of them are not all that young. There are people who travel interstate and vandalise our trains. There are people who drive from one end of town to the other to vandalise. They film their activities and put it online. They are often quite sophisticated. They have rope ladders and they attack trains that are waiting, for example, on the Belair line. They attack them and deface them. One character recently—I am pleased to say that the police caught him; I think that he was from Victoria—left a bit of his flesh on the razor wire at Belair trying to get in to deface the trains that are kept there overnight. As a result of leaving his specimen of flesh, the police were able to DNA test him and that person will appear before the court shortly.

We are not talking about little kiddies who, on the spur of the moment, might do something silly. What we are talking about often is organised groups who are adults and who want to basically stick it up society. I have never understood the argument that it is only marking something. It is just as costly and damaging as someone stealing property. I am delighted that the Attorney has acted. We have had a lot of talk over time but we have finally got a bill. It does not include all the things I argued for.

I can see why the government did not want to include the register of graffiti offenders in terms of their purchase, even though the police have a similar system for some other types of activities where the police can cross-reference people's offending, but I accept that it could be a bit onerous on business. What is in the bill is the ability to recover some costs—taking away a licence in some cases. I think that they are all suitable and appropriate measures.

With those words, I do not want to delay the house, I commend this bill and commend the Attorney for acting on an issue which is very important to the community in terms of tackling something which is not only disconcerting to people but which is a very costly imposition, not only on private dwellings but also on businesses and councils. This is an important measure. It has been a long time coming but I welcome it.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (17:14): I also wish to say a few words on this bill. As indicated by the member for Bragg, the opposition is supporting it. I heard what the member for Fisher had to say about it being a bill from Rau out of Such, and I would say it is going to get 'Chapman-ed' before it is finished, and then it will be done over in the other place as well, but it is another step in the right direction.

As the member for Fisher said, it is a horrendous cost to the community. As I drive around my electorate, but more so when I find it necessary to come to the metropolitan area, I am regularly appalled by the amount of graffiti that is around the place. I see it while I am driving around the state as well—trains are attacked, buildings are attacked, fences are attacked, and it is never-ending. It is seemingly never-ending, and in my view these people who are taking up this form of activity are deserving of absolute contempt.

In particular, I would like to point out the cost to local government and the councils around the state. I know from my own experience that graffiti is something that councils just have to budget for, unfortunately. Although we do not get a lot of it in my electorate, we get enough of it, and in the town of Victor Harbor Margaret Kneebone goes out every day and rubs it off or paints it out. She does a mighty job and should be congratulated, as she has been on a number of occasions. Margaret is heavily involved in Neighbourhood Watch down in Port Elliot and Victor Harbor and keeps a close eye on graffiti.

It is a blight on society. I think that when it comes to graffiti there is something to be said for the Sharia law about cutting off fingers. Graffitiing is a mindless, stupid activity, and one which does our society absolutely no credit at all. Although we seem to amend legislation, try to put more controls in place—we put controls on who can purchase spray cans—and we try everything possible, it still continues. I say that if this bill in any small way helps to reduce the amount of graffiti, we are well off.

It is interesting that the member for Bragg is handling the bill in this house for the opposition. Her late father, Ted Chapman, used to have a saying that if people worked hard they should be paid accordingly; if, for some reason, they couldn't work, they should be looked after; and, if they could work and wouldn't work, they should be starved. Well, it may be that we need to add another line to that phraseology in relation to graffiti artists.

I actually do not call them artists; I think they are just straight-out criminals, quite frankly, and I see no good reason whatsoever why people who are running businesses and working extremely hard, and also public instrumentalities such as trains and buses, should be targeted by these fools who seemingly get away with it on regular occasions. You do not see too much in the press about graffiti artists getting their comeuppance in the courts; it is not sexy enough to rate a mention, most of the time.

Perhaps if the police were able to exert a bit more physical activity, they might be able to give them a few clips around the ear and sort them out. I think it is a failing of our society now that the police are so handicapped in what they can and cannot do, whereas 20 or 25 years ago, or even less than that, if they caught kids out doing the wrong thing they would give them a good swift kick up the backside and a clip around the ear, and it would frighten the daylights out of them.

It needs bringing back; we have got into this sanitised, stupid way of thinking—that you cannot touch anybody and that you cannot do anything to anybody. Well, it used to work wonders. It was a bit like the cane in school; I seem to remember getting a fair few of them myself. It never did us a lot of harm. Over lunch, the member for Mount Gambier was elaborating on a few strokes of the cane he received as well—and look how well he turned out.

Getting back to the bill, I believe it is a step in the right direction. I think we need to continue working away at this, and I hope that the Attorney and the government take note of the member for Bragg's amendments, that they take them on board and accept them, because they are made in the best spirit of the bill and, in my view, should be put in place. With those words, I support the bill.

Mr SIBBONS (Mitchell) (17:20): It is my pleasure to offer my contribution today on the Graffiti Control (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2012. This is another good government bill delivering strong laws that the people of South Australia, and indeed the people of my electorate of Mitchell—

Members interjecting:

Mr SIBBONS: They want that; they want it. The government knows that these new stronger powers are what the people of South Australia want because that is what they have told us. The Labor Party made this commitment an important part of its agenda at the last election, and the bill now before us is the product of the six-week public consultation on a graffiti prevention discussion paper released last year. The bill, which was introduced last year before parliament was prorogued, underwent further consultation to iron out additional concerns.

A long list of government agencies, including SAPOL, made important contributions, as did local government and many other interested parties, including, I understand, the good member for Fisher for whom, I believe, this matter has been a longstanding concern. All this very welcome input was received and taken into account in shaping this bill. I have spoken to many people within my electorate, and one thing that really annoys them bitterly is graffiti. Whether it be their front fence, the Stobie pole down the road, a vehicle or their personal property—whatever it may be, they detest it, and they want it cleaned up. That is a simple fact.

What was clear from that work is that there is widespread support for a whole range of measures working in harmony to deter graffiti vandalism before it happens and to remove graffiti as swiftly as possible when it does occur. It is a combination of prevention and fast cure that will have the greatest impact on our communities. The government is seeking to strengthen prevention through restrictions on the sale of graffiti implements. The sale of spray cans is already restricted and, in spite of the inconvenience this causes, those restrictions are broadly supported.

The proposal to extend bans on the sale of graffiti implements beyond simple spray cans was once more supported by the majority of respondents to community consultation. Nonetheless, there were some concerns that restrictions on display and shelving of these additional implements could potentially impose too much of a burden on retailers. It is not the government's intention to cause undue distress to retailers.

Finally, the proposal of creating a new offence with stronger penalties for making graffiti on memorials, in cemeteries or on places of worship or religious significance met widespread public support—and rightly so. Vandalising a memorial or place of worship is more offensive than the disrespect shown by similar vandalism in other places. As the hurt these acts can create is stronger, so too should be the penalties imposed for such an act. I am pleased to be able to report to my constituents that I am part of a government taking action on this matter and I encourage all members to support this bill.

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (17:25): I am pleased to be able to stand and support the Graffiti Control (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill. The opposition has, of course, flagged some amendments that will improve the operation of the bill and I will briefly touch on them later, but I just want to deal first with the offence at hand.

Between 1 February 2002 and 31 December 2009, I am informed that there were 33,317 offences under the Graffiti Control Act, of which 78 per cent were one-off offenders. Only 1 per cent of those offenders had five or more graffiti apprehensions but, clearly, when we are talking about that 1 per cent who have had five or more apprehensions, we are talking about people who are perhaps due for some more severe penalty than had previously been applied by the courts.

As I understand it, the average fine that is awarded by the courts to adults convicted of graffiti offences is $258 or $117 for juveniles. The highest offence under the act, and even more under this bill, is substantially higher than that.

Graffiti is often described as a minor crime but it is a significant scourge on many of our communities. A number of members have already here in this house identified some of the significant problems in their local communities. One of the first incidences that was brought to my attention when I was selected as the member for Morialta in March 2010 was the high rate of graffiti around the Paradise skate park and the bridge over the River Torrens and the Linear Park that is just to the north and east of that skate park. I do not know if many members have seen the Paradise skate park but it is just opposite the Paradise Interchange bus facilities, so I am sure that any members in the north-eastern suburbs wanting to go home probably have to go through that area.

The skate park is visible from Darley Road and it is a constant disgrace. It is constantly completely covered in graffiti. It is deeply unpleasant for the people nearby and the people going to church next door. The bridge next door is possibly even more problematic because, of course, this is an area where we encourage families to go for walks, take their pets on walks and ride their cycles for recreation and there is this constant blight on the landscape.

When it affects people's personal property it is an even more significant concern, in my view. I know from personal experience, and certainly it is an experience shared by many who have related their concern to me, that when you have your property vandalised in any way it is a violation and potentially a very harrowing experience, especially when it occurs in a repeated way, so strengthening the laws surrounding the control of graffiti is something that I am pleased to be part of today.

On the incidents that I was describing at Paradise though, when I was first elected I spoke to the council and I spoke to the local police and I was somewhat concerned that the approach seems to all too often be a sort of harm management approach. We are not going to police the park regularly, for example, around where all this graffiti happens in my area because, if they did not do it there, the people involved might be more likely to do it in people's private residences, is the information that I received. I can understand that to a certain extent, but I think that it belies an underlying need to get tougher on graffiti vandals.

Some members have talked about whether or not people are graffiti artists. I think there are street artists who can do some magnificent artwork, but the key point is they are not vandalising other people's property or public property. When people are undertaking graffiti on public property or private property—property that is not their own—then they are vandals, they are not artists. I think we need to be very clear about that. We need to give our police whatever powers they need in order to undertake their duties effectively, and hopefully the courts will pay attention to the community concern about this graffiti vandalism in applying the penalties when people are convicted of these offences.

As previously stated, the Liberal Party has a number of amendments to improve the bill. I support those. To take an example, rather than leaving it to regulation, we propose putting in the act the revised definition of 'prescribed graffiti implement'. At the moment there are restrictions around the sale of spray paint to children. We propose that the definition of 'prescribed graffiti implement' be inserted as either (a) a can of spray paint or (b) a graffiti implement designed or modified to produce a mark that, first, is not readily removable by wiping or by use of water or detergent; and, secondly, is more than 15 millimetres wide. I think this is very useful when we are talking about the types of implements that are really only going to be used in this negative way unless controlled otherwise.

I understand that the opposition, members of parliament, and the cross benches are all supporting the bill. I think government members in their remarks can take comfort in that, and I think passionate exhortations that may potentially make for good theatre are not that necessary at this stage of the debate. Everyone is onside. We think we can improve the bill, and we look forward to our attempts to do so.

Mr BROCK (Frome) (17:31): I also would like to contribute to the Graffiti Control (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill and congratulate all the speakers prior to my having the opportunity to speak. I support this bill. It is long overdue, and we need to review it on a regular basis. I will be very brief, but I would like to elaborate on my previous experience as mayor of the Port Pirie Regional Council and the policy we had in place at that particular point. I take on board the member for Bragg's recommendations and amendments, and I hope that the government takes them seriously because they may be minor but they do assist the bill.

From my previous experience, for every dollar that is spent because of graffiti, there is a major amount of money that is not going into roads and infrastructure, and so on. That applies not only to the government but also to local council and community groups. It is an ongoing issue, and it is a very expensive issue. The member for Fisher indicated that it is not only minors who are doing this, and that is true. In my previous experience, we apprehended adults who went out and graffitied, and they think it is funny, but I do not think it is very funny at all because it is a blight on the community, it is a blight on the image of the community, and it is a costly factor.

When communities are vandalised, it is detrimental to the image of the community. It affects how tourists see that community, that facility, or that location. It also brings down the community's confidence because people take pride in not only their home and their car but also in their communities, and seeing these ridiculous acts of treachery does not do anybody any good at all.

The penalties for the offences should be a deterrent, and they should be consistent and, in my belief, they should also be at the maximum. The member for Morialta indicated a minute ago that the average fines are pitiful. We should be making them so high that they are a deterrent because people who might think it is funny might only be fined a couple of hundred dollars or get a slap on the wrist. As the member for Finniss indicated, we should be stricter with these people and with the punishment.

With graffiti artists—and I call them artists because they think they are—the longer their graffiti is in the public view the more they gloat, and they say all the time, 'This is my trademark, this is my signature out there,' and gloat about it. What we have to do as a community, whether it is government, community leaders or local councils, is get onto those issues and eliminate them very quickly. This is happening in one of the five councils I represent. The Port Pirie Regional Council is experiencing lots of graffiti issues at the moment. I spoke to the CEO just recently. Some of the graffiti has been sitting in different locations for two months, whether it is in toilets, playgrounds, side fences, or wherever. The comment they are making to me is that it is an expensive issue.

It might be an expensive issue to remove, but it is also a very expensive issue for the image of our community there. I will be pushing very hard for that council to remove the graffiti very quickly. I wanted to touch on those issues. It is a very important bill. As the member for Morialta indicated, all the crossbenchers are supporting it. I am looking forward to some of the amendments going through. I certainly support the bill and look forward to the committee stage.

Mrs GERAGHTY (Torrens) (17:36): I have listened to what people have said and I do agree. I have graffiti problems in my community. I have graffiti problems on my front fence. For a long time, at 6 o'clock in the morning there I would be in my jamies painting the fence—

Members interjecting:

Mrs GERAGHTY: A horrible sight, but I took the view that the faster I got it off the less they would come back. It took a long time for them to stop their activity, but I had the feeling they got sick of seeing me out there in my pyjamas.

Mr Sibbons interjecting:

Mrs GERAGHTY: Much better than a scarecrow. In my electorate of Torrens my constituents will be exceptionally pleased to know that this bill is set to go through the parliament, which it hopefully will. Graffiti vandalism is more than an eyesore, as many have said. The damage it causes leads to very significant costs that are borne by all of us in the community. We pay for that through our taxes and council rates but also in the significant clean-up costs. Graffiti has a huge financial impact on our community.

There are also social costs that are harder to quantify, but they are nonetheless real. We all want to live in attractive and safe communities. There is nothing worse than driving around seeing tags, meaningless things and spray painting all over the place. When our public places are blighted by these tags it just makes us feel unsafe in our own communities. Certainly the government has recognised that and the concern that is in the public mind. That is the reason for this bill, and I am really pleased with it.

The bill attacks graffiti vandalism broadly on three fronts. It creates new offences, it further restricts the sale and supply of graffiti implements, and it creates new penalties for graffiti vandals, and that, I think, is a great deterrent. The new offences and stiffer penalties exist partly to act as a deterrent to vandals from making their mark in the very first place, and that is the thing: we want to stop them; we do not want young people thinking it is a great activity in the community.

The government has announced additional funding to complement the deterrent of the penalties. The Crime Prevention and Safety Grants program provides funding from between $10,000 and $50,000 to local councils and community groups to deliver crime and graffiti prevention programs. I think that is very important.

Total funding for this grant program is set to rise to $800,000 per year, with $200,000 dedicated to combating graffiti, meaning more local councils and community groups will be able to deliver innovative and effective graffiti prevention programs. The $200,000 earmarked specifically for graffiti prevention projects is double the amount allocated for anti-graffiti projects last year.

I hope my Klemzig Neighbourhood Watch group will apply for and benefit from this grant, because they do a fantastic job in the community. They have been given a trailer through the local council and they buy paint, or paint is donated. It is not a young group, it is made up of more senior members of the community (in general) and you will see them out in the community painting away—early morning, during the day, in the evening, they are out there cleaning up. In fact, so good are they at the job they do that they have been asked by other communities to go around and clean up the graffiti in their communities as well. We get fed up with seeing our structures in parks graffitied, even artwork in our parks is spray painted and it looks untidy. You do not want to take your children into a park where there is graffiti all over the place. It is not a pleasant way to spend an afternoon with family and friends.

The new preventative powers will also extend to police powers. This bill will give police the power to confiscate a potential graffiti vandal's spray can or marker. I remember the markers the member for Bragg talked about. I have a young grandson and, thankfully, he has not written on my walls, but some cousins have and I personally would like to see those disappear as well, or any other similar implement in order to prevent graffiti vandalism from occurring in the first place. I think that is the key to all of this.

There are other clear benefits in preventing the commission of the offence in the first place: the clean up is not required, there is no offence to prosecute and there is the warning given to the potential offender. There will be no need for the officer to resort to an arrest or charge, as opposed to the current situation where this is required. I am very pleased to support this bill. I think everyone in all of our communities will be delighted—except for, of course, the graffiti artists—to see this go through and, hopefully, we can walk around our communities and not see this disgusting stuff splattered everywhere.

Ms SANDERSON (Adelaide) (17:42): I rise in support of this bill. Graffiti today generally refers to the illegal defacing of public/private property in the style of words, colours, shapes or scratchings on buildings, overpasses, public transport carriages or infrastructure or other surfaces. It is often done without permission and in all states and territories throughout Australia it is against the law. Graffiti is also unsafe for those who undertake it, often putting themselves in dangerous positions where harm and even death has occurred. I am reminded of the young man who died near Christies Beach last year while trying to tag a bridge.

Although the real amount of money spent by communities and private property owners, small businesses and public agencies each year to repair, replace and clean up property defaced by graffiti vandalism has yet to be definitively documented in Australia, it is estimated that local governments across Australia spend approximately $260 million annually on graffiti vandalism removal. I note that the member for Fisher mentioned a figure for South Australia of $12 million per annum, and for the Adelaide City Council of $409,000 per year, which is an incredible amount of money.

Speaking of that, on Saturday night I was part of a safety audit of Hindley Street. I am pleased to say that there was not a lot of graffiti around. In one of the laneways they actually had a graffiti art exhibition on the sides of a couple of buildings. They even have some light boxes that are used to light the area, as well as have some decorative art as part of the graffiti works on the building. So, there are some positive ways to use the creativity of these young people and focus that in more positive areas.

I will mention the Can the Can program, which is a restorative justice initiative for young offenders involved in illegal graffiti. That is in partnership with SAPOL and local businesses. Last year, I went to a re-launch of the Commonwealth Bank on King William Street. There were three graffiti artists there and they auctioned off their artworks. One young boy spoke about how if he had not been found by the youth worker at the local council that he would have continued graffitiing.

The penalties did not really stop him at the time because he was on drugs and drinking a lot as well; it was the fact that the youth worker found him and was able to put him in a program where he can still graffiti but as an artist. He can sell his work and actually paint sides of buildings where the business owners actually want the building painted, which I think is a very positive way of helping youth.

In the Prospect city council area alone, the council has budgeted $24,000 this year for removal of graffiti from Prospect council property and a further $9,000 for non-council property. The council relies heavily on volunteers to remove and manage graffiti within the area. This is such a waste of money and resources that could be spent on other positive things such as parks or libraries. This does not take into account the many hours of wasted time and resources that could otherwise be spent on improving public service and for other productive purposes.

The presence of graffiti can trigger a decline in property values and cause potential homebuyers and businesses to look in other areas or communities. The economic impact on local businesses can be great as customers decide to shop in other neighbourhoods where they feel and think they are safer.

Graffiti vandalism can also potentially lead to loss of funding for community organisations, youth groups and school programs, as businesses and schools are spending their money removing the graffiti instead of helping employ more people or having more positive programs, so there is a significant social cost to graffiti.

What cannot be measured in lost dollars and business is the real impact that graffiti vandalism has on the fabric of the community and society itself. Graffiti vandalism in public places sends a message to the community that the places where they live and work and the public transportation they use are no longer controlled by the agencies responsible. Its appearance in neighbourhoods is often perceived by residents and passers-by as a sign that a downward spiral has begun, even though this may not be true. I am very supportive and I commend the bill to the house.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (17:47): One of the banes of my life down at Glenelg is to come to the office and see graffiti along some of the back lanes and alleyways and around the streets. It is just a pain in the neck. These imbeciles that do this! I just cannot fathom the thoughts that go through their heads, thinking that this is somehow going to make them immortal, get them some respect or in any other way endear themselves to anybody in the community. It is just beyond me how these people can think this is something worthwhile.

We do see lots of it around the Bay, unfortunately, with spray cans and the wide tip markers, but one of the most expensive forms we see is the people who scratch the large front shop windows. It is a very expensive exercise to have that polished out or have the glass replaced, and sometimes you will see shop after shop after shop down Jetty Road with inane tags scratched into the glass. It is heartbreaking for the shop owners because they have to then undertake not only replacement or polishing of the glass but also make sure that any signage they may have had on there is also replaced. It is very expensive.

The City of Holdfast Bay does spend many thousands of dollars every year getting rid of the graffiti and they have some quick response teams that go out that do a terrific job, but why these people do it in the first place is something that is beyond me. We see it on the tops of buildings; we see it where people have climbed up and endangered their own lives. As the member for Adelaide said, we have in the past seen people die as a result of their efforts to immortalise themselves in an inane tag. What they have done, though, is ended their mortality in a very unfortunate way and a very worthless way, in my opinion.

I have seen the other end of the so-called graffiti spectrum and I would call it graphic art rather than graffiti, where some people who were perhaps involved in tagging have actually produced quite spectacular works of art. The very best one I have ever seen was in London in a tunnel by a railway station, and the images were four or five metres wide and three or four metres high in some cases.

The one that really sticks out was the head of a gorilla and it was just brilliant the way it was done in spray cans with shades of grey and black and white. It was really great and there were other examples of what was really good graphic art. This is light years away from the tags we see around some of our suburbs on our signs and on our shops. We have even had tags on the sign at the front of my office, and we have had to clean it off a few times. It is so frustrating for everybody who wants to have pride in their neighbourhood. The member for Torrens said that she is out there painting graffiti off the front of her property, and I remember doing that at my vet practice, getting the graffiti off the signs early in the morning.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Not in your pyjamas.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I was not in my pyjamas, member for Croydon. I might have been in scrubs or something like that, ready to cut some testicles off a cat and take my frustrations out on that. I would do it very gently, though, under anaesthetic. I would like to cut something off some of these graffiti vandals—but I think I would be using a blunt bread knife. I digress, but you can sense the level of frustration.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: Are you foreshadowing an amendment?

Dr McFETRIDGE: No, Attorney-General, I am not foreshadowing an amendment to the penalties, but I am very pleased to see the increased penalties here, particularly in relation to cemeteries and memorials. There is nothing worse, particularly on ANZAC morning, than seeing diggers having to clean off war memorials. Graffiti is something that is so un-Australian, never mind an understandable act.

The big thing with these graffiti vandals is that you have to catch them. We have a particular issue down at the Bay at the moment. I have been pushing for CCTV down there, and I will give the federal government their due because Steve Georganas has helped get some money down there for extra CCTV cameras. However, the council wants to put in more lights. Is this so that the vandals can see what they are doing? We want to see more TV cameras down there.

It is absolutely necessary to spend that money on CCTV so that we can catch these people not only if they undertake the graffiti but, more importantly, to deter them from doing it in the first place. If you can stop them committing the crime, at least you are going to give the residents and business owners some relief from the distress they suffer when they come along in the morning and see the damage that has been done. Some of it is significant damage that takes a lot of work to get off—a lot of high-pressure cleaner and chemicals or, in the case of glass, very expensive polishing or replacement of the glass.

We need to emphasise to young people that this really is an inane act. It really is something that we need to deter. We need to let them know that there are better ways of expressing themselves, such as through art classes, through other education or, as the member for Adelaide said, through some of the graphic art work that is being done by former graffiti vandals, turning graffiti artists into graphic artists. This is so important, and this legislation will help with that. The member for Fisher has long been a champion of trying to battle graffiti, and I think every member in this place would get complaints every day and see it every day in their electorates. It is about time it stopped. How you get it to stop, I do not know.

I will finish by saying that there is one concern about particular tags that you see around the place; one is 'COA' and another is '73A', which I have seen. COA apparently stands for 'constantly on the attack'. I understand that is a group of young people—a gang, I suppose you could call them—that is in cahoots with some of the bikies, and they are being recruited to run errands and do things for the bikies. I think 73A is a bus route that some of these people come in on. They come down around the Bay and leave their tag behind. It is distressing not only to see those tags but also, when you look behind at what is going on with these young people, that they think this is something that will have an impact on their lives or other people's lives. It is completely impossible for me to work out how they think.

I look forward to seeing this bill go through. There are some amendments that the opposition will be moving. The government is well intentioned, but I think the bill could be improved, and I hope that it considers our amendments.

The SPEAKER: I am very concerned about the amount of gratuitous violence this bill is inciting, with the very quiet member for Morphett wanting to castrate and the member for Finniss wanting to bring back police brutality. It is quite amazing.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (17:54): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise, too, to support the Graffiti Control (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill, and I also want to add commentary from my electorate, the electorate of Hammond. Being a grain-growing area we certainly see all the railcars that come through, whether they are bulk grain cars (which are quite obvious targets for graffiti) or other types of railcars, and graffiti attacks on trains seem to be something that has gone on for decades. We also see graffiti on buildings and fences. I know that the fences of electorate offices can be a bit of a target but it soon gets cleaned up. We have a good Neighbourhood Watch group especially in Murray Bridge. Bob Wheare has been a great anti-graffiti campaigner for many, many years, making sure that it gets cleaned up so that these hooligans cannot have their tags up for very long at all.

It is great to see the local work of volunteers—whether they be organised through Neighbourhood Watch or just individuals in the community—who all do their bit to stem the flow of graffiti in communities. I just want to relate an email that came from a group, Graffiti Hurts-Australia. It came to my office several years ago but it is still quite apt in regard to this bill today because, obviously, graffiti still goes on:

Graffiti, a gateway crime that affects more fabrics of our society than most people would realise.

It is an issue that is often not seen as important yet affects businesses, local economies, the health of many in our community, the cost borne on local community groups and service providers and helps increase insurance premiums, public transport safety, public service utilities, and we could go on.

In fact, although the real amount of money spent by communities, private property owners, small business, public agencies and governments each year to repair, replace and clean up property defaced by graffiti vandalism has yet to be definitively documented in Australia, we do know one thing, the costs are rising. Through [this organisation] Graffiti Hurts-Australia's research—

and this is from 2008—

of all Local Governments across Australia, it costs them over $250 million annually on graffiti vandalism removal, which equates to just under $12 per Australian each year being spent solely on graffiti vandalism.

While seemingly a small issue or as some would believe a way for youth to express themselves, it is in fact a gateway crime that can, and has reduced the sense of community across Australia.

Graffiti Hurts-Australia believes, and the reason for our existence, is to highlight that graffiti has never been a one government department issue, in fact it has never been solely a government issue at all. It is a whole of community issue.

The economic impact on local businesses can be great as customers decide to shop in other neighbourhoods where they feel and think are safer due to less graffiti vandalism other anti-social behaviour.

Graffiti vandalism can also lead to the potential loss of much needed funds for community organisations, youth groups and school programs as they spend money that could be used for such community programs and services or even employing more people.

Graffiti vandalism in public areas sends a message to the community that the places where they live, work and the public transport they use are no longer controlled by the agencies responsible for their management but are controlled by those undertaking antisocial behaviour.

This perception of increased personal risk can also be carried over into neighbourhoods. Left alone, graffiti vandalism is one in a sequence of events in the decline of pride within a neighbourhood known as the 'broken window' syndrome.

According to sociologist George Kelling, 'If a window in a building is broken and left unrepaired, all of the rest of the windows will soon be broken. One unrepaired window is a signal that no-one cares, and so breaking more windows costs nothing.'

New South Wales—

and these are New South Wales' figures I will quote here—

police figures show a steady increase in the number of recorded graffiti incidents between 2004 and 2005 by type of premises as follows:

Business/Commercial +73.8%

Education +41 %

Industrial +91 %

Religious +74 %

Residential +49.2%

Transport +26%

Vehicle +520%

The above figures show that there is not one aspect in our community that is not affected by graffiti vandalism. Madam Speaker, I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.


[Sitting suspended from 18:00 to 19:30]


PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT