Page 1814 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 4 May 2005

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .


To finish off, I want to talk about what I think the government must do to tackle the graffiti problem in the ACT. What is the point of simply reacting to the problem—that is, running around and cleaning up after the deed has been done? Do we just keep cleaning up more and more mess, faster and faster, adding more graffiti clean up contracts to the mix, or do we tackle the real issue, do everything possible to prevent this problem from occurring in the first place, and deal adequately with those who engage in this destructive and illegal behaviour in a way that will act as a deterrent to others?

The Stanhope government must deploy additional inspectors, with police, to detect and arrest the graffiti vandals. Given the apparent difficulty of arresting graffiti vandals as the extremely low success rate of.2 per cent shows, an example must be made of those arrested in order to deter others from committing similar crimes.

The reality of the extent of the problem points us towards this tack being taken. There should be no more cautions or slaps on the wrist. These criminals should be charged with the serious offence of graffiti vandalism and defacing or damaging property, in order to lead them to understand the consequences of their actions.

I have said here today that the graffiti management strategy is not enough. I am not criticising the mechanics of that; the minister got that wrong. I quite support the elements that we currently see in that strategy. It is a step ahead. It was a good move put in place a couple of years ago—effectively a year ago. It is a good start, but I am arguing that much more needs to be done to add value to that management strategy. I say again that we need to put in place a preventative strategy as well.

We are not advocating that there should be an automatic jail term for all offenders. In fact, most offenders arrested committing graffiti crimes would not go to jail. Recidivist offenders must face the prospect of going to jail if they continue to want to destroy property in the ACT and continue to pull down the standards. I am proposing the imposition of a binding court penalty, weekend detention and clean-up squads in order for these people to understand the implications of their actions. We would like to see the banning of spray cans to under-18s. Another essential change is needed in that regard.

In New South Wales they have introduced legislation to make the sale of spray cans to under-18s illegal. That would seem to be another positive step forward. The Labor government in a major state has proposed that as a major strategy towards combating this problem head on. Why cannot the ACT have a look at that and try to conform, particularly given that we are an island within the jurisdiction of New South Wales?

In conclusion, the ACT is in bad shape graffiti-wise. It is looking unkempt and the standards have gone down, despite making comparisons with New York and London. A mere decade ago the ACT was a much cleaner looking place. Standards are declining and this government has got to move directly and firmly to take this problem head on.

The Stanhope government is soft on graffiti crime. We are suggesting that the Stanhope government must arrest offenders, that it must put the majority of those offenders into weekend detention and graffiti clean-up activities; and that the Chief Minister must show that he is firm—he must exercise leadership by showing that he is fair dinkum about taking on graffiti.


Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .