Page 2271 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 15 September 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
that it is impossible to send to the community, particularly that part of the community that engages in graffiti, a message that we support the former kind of graffiti and abhor and discourage the latter kind. That kind of message is impossible to get across. At the end of the day, our clear message from this Assembly has to be that graffiti is a form of vandalism and that we will not tolerate or accept it. We should be taking steps to discourage that form of expression in the community because, ultimately, it is the sort of expression that most people in the community do not profit or benefit from and in fact are offended by.
The word "graffiti", if I recall correctly, comes from the Italian "graffio", which means to scrape or scratch. The great artists and thinkers of yesteryear - Michelangelo and Luther were mentioned by Ms Szuty - might have engaged in graffiti as some appropriate form of expression; but I think it is quite misleading to suggest that we gain some authenticity, some historical value, from graffiti in the present context merely because it has its modern precursors. I can think of many other analogies that might show how futile that argument is, but I will not proceed with it.
We need to bear in mind that almost invariably graffiti involves the defacing, destruction or damaging of somebody else's property. Whether it is public property or private property, it entails a person using somebody else's property as if it were his own. It is frankly irresponsible of Ms Szuty to suggest that we should be in some way encouraging people to treat somebody else's piece of property as a canvas on which to express their ideas.
Ms Szuty would be most upset if she went out to her car one morning and found that someone had decided to use it as a canvas on which to express views about land tax, the banning of circus animals or some other important issue in the community. We might well say that the matters being expressed in that message are of vital importance to our society and our community. We would not say that Ms Szuty's car, her house or anything else that belonged to her was an appropriate vehicle for that kind of expression. The fact of life is that most vandalism, most graffiti, is not artistic; it is not thought provoking; it is not socially redeeming in any way. In the vast majority of cases, at least according to my observation, it is sexist, racist, defamatory or scatological. In each of those cases there is no valid reason for society to be promoting or encouraging that kind of expression.
I was not listening closely, but I think the other point made by the Attorney was that graffiti in its effect limits the accessibility of people to certain public places. By the overlaying of graffiti on public buildings, on underpasses, on certain areas or environments, you very distinctly change the character of that place. The result is that it affects people's attitudes towards that place. I have had many complaints from people, particularly in relation to the Civic area and Garema Place, about a number of features of the central part of the Canberra shopping area. The complaints relate to the way in which the character of that amenity has changed because of graffiti. They say that people do not look on it in the same way because of the way graffiti has, as they would say, lowered the tone, or changed the tone, of the neighbourhood. It does affect people's view of that place.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .