Page 529 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 17 February 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Alternatively the ACT government might believe that these artists are not responsible for the graffiti in our suburbs, which I think is most likely. The fact is that government has a $750,000 anti-graffiti program, which is my understanding, but it is not achieving what it is meant to. I will be keen to hear what the minister has to say.
Many residents whose homes back onto Hindmarsh Drive have seen their rates increase hugely over the term of the government. Lyons has had an increase 41.5 per cent; Stirling, 43.5 per cent; Chifley, 44.5 per cent; Weston 45.7, per cent; Waramanga, 46.6 per cent; and Fisher has had an increase of 51 per cent in their rates. But they still drive along a road where fences are covered in graffiti vandalism. You would think, with all the extra money government is extracting from people’s homes through the rates increases, the proper maintenance of suburbs would be a priority. But, sadly, the government is using the family homes and family households of Canberra as an asset, as an ATM to withdraw more and more money to prop up tram services that are going to support one per cent of the population
The Labor-Greens government are failing to address the social, physical and psychological stress that can be caused by suburban graffiti vandalism. We all know about the broken window theory which was popularised by the former Mayor of New York City, Rudy Giuliani. It is a well-known and well-respected concept that the appearance of urban decay and disrepair encourages further vandalism, break-ins and other crimes.
The broken window theory holds that a broken window left in a building unfixed encourages the congregation of lawbreaking individuals who see the physical deterioration of the area as a sign that their activities and misbehaviour will go unnoticed. Once this occurs other citizens begin avoiding the area, leaving it to those individuals who are perpetrating the crimes. Eventually the persistence spreads outward into otherwise clean and tidy, well-maintained areas.
In New York City, Mayor Giuliani sought to address the graffiti and other forms of vandalism quickly and effectively. Any vandalism that popped up was immediately removed or covered up. By having a tirelessly effective campaign against graffiti, New York City saw its streets cleaned up and areas which previously felt unsafe were once again busy public domains.
The ACT government’s graffiti contract manager, I believe, in May 2015 acknowledged that this was the best approach to addressing graffiti. He said in a letter to residents whose back fences faced onto Hindmarsh Drive that rapid removal continues to be the main defence against graffiti vandalism and has proven over time to be a key deterrent. However, in the same letter it was outlined that graffiti removal from fences which face onto public land was not the responsibility of TAMS. It was advised that illegal graffiti should be removed by the private property owner as soon as it appears.
However, if a burglar decides to commit a crime and break into my house—let us say they kick down the front door and get a spray can and go at my lounge room—I then call the police. They come and investigate the crime, take photos and dust for
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video