Page 2272 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 15 September 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The best example is the sort of change that goes on when someone puts graffiti on an underpass. Underpasses are not very successful concepts, in my view; they are not viewed by many people as a good place to be. If they go through an underpass, they move through quickly and leave it as quickly as they can. Graffiti accentuates the unattractiveness of an underpass; it even accentuates the sense of fear we feel when we are passing through an underpass. We associate it with people who are breaking the law, people who are foul-mouthed, people who have destructive forces at work in their lives. That kind of thing intimidates people, and it results in people avoiding those kinds of places. That is an unfortunate tendency. Mr Connolly made reference to the effect on signs. I would argue that, when somebody drives into the ACT and sees on the Federal Highway sign the words, "Welcome to Canberra, the National Capital", or whatever it is, and then four-letter words sprayed over the top, they form a bad impression of Canberra. It is their initial impression, the impression they get when they first come to the city, and it is a bad impression. Graffiti of that kind has no merit whatsoever. It is extremely destructive.
To be quite frank, I do not think Ms Szuty speaks to the same sort of people that I do. I do not know many people who espouse seriously courses in Madonna studies at university. Perhaps I am on a different plane from Ms Szuty. The vast majority of people who have spoken to me in my capacity as a member of this Assembly have complained about graffiti, asking me to do something about graffiti in their suburbs. People have complained about rocks being painted in nature walks in the north of Canberra, in Belconnen. People have complained about signs, and about a change room that is completely covered in graffiti, with the result that people do not want to go near it. People who might want to use it for some kind of legitimate function are discouraged from doing so because of the nature of the graffiti all over it. The sooner we discourage that kind of thing, the better off we will be.
I understand that some other communities are even more concerned about that than we are. The Attorney will be very pleased about this because it comes from South Australia. He will no doubt be very keen to support it. I understand that the South Australian Government has actually made it an offence to carry a spray paint can in a public place. That is how concerned the people of South Australia are about the problem of graffiti. That is what the Labor Government in South Australia has done in response to the concern. From a legal point of view, I would not necessarily want to go quite that far in the ACT. It is very tempting, but I would not want to go quite that far.
Mr Wood: What did you use in your day?
MR HUMPHRIES: I refuse to answer that question, on the grounds that it might incriminate me. Madam Speaker, I do not believe that our community can afford to ignore this problem. We need to act on it. The only thing I would agree with Ms Szuty about is the need to divert some of this energy into media that are acceptable to the broader community and that do not entail the damaging of public property. For example, we probably should encourage the provision of some designated public graffiti space. When I was at the University of New England there was a wall at the end of a building which was designated as the graffiti wall. They actually provided the paint at the university so that you could paint things on it. Some quite successful, quite entertaining graffiti was painted on that wall. That is an area of expression that is legitimate and directed, and it is tolerant of other people's beliefs and views about graffiti. The kind of broad brush Ms Szuty talks about, I think, goes far too far.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .