Graffiti Control Amendment Bill 2009
Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes: As a Family First member of Parliament I speak to the Graffiti Control Amendment Bill 2009. The bill amends the Graffiti Control Act 2008 to create new offences relating to the supply of spray paint cans to children and the possession of spray paint cans by children; to increase the penalties for certain existing graffiti offences; and to introduce a scheme of community clean-up orders, under which an offender fined for a graffiti offence can be directed by a court to perform community clean-up work in order to satisfy the fine.
The bill amends the Graffiti Control Regulation 2009 to enable certain local council employees to issue penalty notices for certain offences under the principal Act. It also amends the Rail Safety Act 2008 to give rail safety officers the power to direct a person to state his or her name and address if the officer finds that person committing an offence against the principal Act, or reasonably suspects that the person has committed an offence against the principal Act.
As I am a dignified and law-abiding person I am quite sure that no member of this House would believe that almost 60 years ago I was caught in an act of graffitiing.
The Hon. Rick Colless: I didn’t think you were that old, Gordon.
Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes: I was very young at the time. It was when a yeti was believed to have been seen on Mount Everest.
[Interruption]
Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes: I was in BUGA UP before you were, Mr Cohen.
Mr Ian Cohen: That’s going back a way.
Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes: It is going back a way. In the 1950s, when I was at high school and the yeti was seen, I decided that I should enlighten my fellow students about the proximity of the yeti to our high school. So early one morning, at about 3.00 a.m., I borrowed my parents’ vehicle without permission and picked up a friend of mine—who is now a most dignified barrister-cum-judge in the Victorian Supreme Court.
We had cut out a stencil of large yeti feet about four feet high and, using cans of white paint, we painted the feet across the high school quadrangle and then up the wall, where the yeti disappeared into the small windows that marked the female staff toilets. The following day our work received a great deal of attention from 900 boys at Box Hill Boys High School. I think the statute of limitations period has passed. In any event, I give permission here and now for our principal, or any other senior teacher at the school at that time, to punish me now that I have confessed to this crime, if they think fit. It is that kind of motivation that I am quite sure encourages graffiti artists to add their tags to trains and public places.
In 2006 the Anti-Graffiti Action Team, led by the Department of Justice and Attorney General, was established to develop and oversee the implementation of new initiatives to stamp out graffiti. Following the commencement of the Graffiti Control Act 2008, a number of new initiatives have been developed to prevent, clean up and reduce the incidence of graffiti. The new initiatives are informed by two items of research: “The Motivations and Modus Operandi of Persons Who Do Graffiti” and the “Review of Graffiti Reduction Demonstration Projects 2007-08”.
Under the bill, courts will be given the power to order a graffiti vandal who has received a fine to perform community clean-up work and be credited with $30 off the fine for every hour worked and, if practicable, to participate in a graffiti prevention program. When a person has been fined for a graffiti offence, they will be allowed to apply to the court to perform a community clean-up in lieu of the fine amount.
Young people are highly visible in public places and are significant users of public transport where incidents of graffiti occur. The latest figures show that vandalism on Sydney’s trains is costing the State Government $15 million a year to clean up. Each month between 30,000 and 50,000 graffiti attacks are removed from trains. Graffiti and vandalism have a negative impact on the State’s rail system. The biggest losers are rail commuters who would choose to take public transport but are discouraged from doing so by vandalism and graffiti on train seats.
Policy makers need to differentiate between types of graffiti and understand the motivations for doing different forms of graffiti. There is what we call legal graffiti, which is usually on walls set aside by councils and other public organisations. There are many positive aspects to young people learning to do legal graffiti—although I do not have much confidence in them—such as gaining skills that assist in developing a craft, being part of a peer group and popular culture, and enhancing self-esteem.
Personally, I wish young people would develop their self-esteem by engaging in another form of community service. Some local government initiatives encourage young people to develop their skills in stencil art and other forms of graffiti as art. In other cases, local businesses commission street artists to decorate the facade of their shops.
I cite one such example I undertook in the mid 1980s when I opened a centre for homeless youth who were living on the street. The centre, in the theatre district of Liverpool and George streets in the city, was open all night, every night. At that time there were hundreds of young people hanging around with nothing to do. I opened a shop there, which provided hot drinks and food, and dry clothing on nights when it was raining. There were two other floors with counsellors and various activities to encourage young people to come in.
In order to help young people cross the threshold and come into the shop, I took in some graffiti artists who had been convicted by the courts and offered to pay them for doing up the premises. They did the job—beautifully—and other people who came into the shop were quite at home. It operated successfully for many years.
For these reasons it is important to make these distinctions in the bill. Some young people have spray cans in their possession not for the purpose of graffiti but for “chroming”. This is a volatile and harmful practice that involves inhaling solvent-based products such as spray paints in order to get high. Hence it is important to adopt a harm minimisation approach to solve this ghastly problem amongst our youth, which can cause brain damage. I support a juvenile justice framework that emphasises diversion and rehabilitation. By doing community clean-up, the system aims to prevent low-risk young people from entering the criminal justice system and to rehabilitate more serious young offenders.
It is worth noting that the most cost-effective approach to reducing the incidence of graffiti is to address both the motivation for young people to engage in graffiti and the opportunities available to do so. Examples of opportunity reduction include using materials that are resistant to scratching and marking, improved lighting and better design.
At one of Wesley Mission’s main centres we constantly suffered from the work of graffiti artists on our high, white walls. High, bright lights were installed at a cost of several hundred dollars, which beautifully illuminated the building so people could clearly see it when driving by, and the graffiti stopped. I discovered at that point the truth of the biblical sentence: deeds of darkness hate the light.
As lawmakers we should further investigate social programs aimed at alleviating some of the boredom and alienation that leads young people to graffiti. These longer-term solutions should include diverting potential offenders through programs and activities to keep them occupied and develop skills; community and school-based education programs that promote a sense of responsibility for, and ownership of, community resources and facilities; and providing more legal outlets for young people to practice their art.
Local councils and police should work with community members who are affected by graffiti and with young people who engage in graffiti-related activities. Young people will then become part of the solution rather than being seen as a problem. Police can play an active role in bringing both groups together to discuss the best ways of addressing graffiti and, in the process, may begin to address the issues of alienation, boredom and hopelessness.
Where young people come into contact with the legal system because of graffiti-related charges they should be treated fairly and, wherever possible, the young person should be diverted out of the criminal justice system.
It is for these vital reasons that Family First supports the bill, and, as the oldest graffiti artist in this place, I commend it to the House.
