Page 2275 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 15 September 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
We should also be recognising graffiti for what it is - an expression of alienation, often an expression of frustration, of feeling disempowered. People who are empowered do not feel the need - Mr Cornwell probably has never felt the need, as indeed I have never felt it - to engage in graffiti. I cannot, for the life of me, remember ever writing anything on a wall in that way - apart from on blackboards, which are specifically designed for it, and I have written on those on many occasions, and perhaps on whiteboards. I am fortunate not to have felt the type of disempowerment that would lead me to that kind of expression. I am fortunate to have been literate enough to find other forms of expression, as would be the case with most members here - apart from the short time at university that Mr Humphries admits to.
In dealing with the matter before us we should identify a series of differences. Already members who have spoken have identified the difference between graffiti art and graffiti, and we accept that. We also need to identify the difference between the symptom and the problem. The solutions to that problem are not simple. The solution to any problem of disempowerment is never simple. It means facing the fact that we will have to surrender some of the power we have to people who are younger than ourselves, and that might be difficult for members to face.
Schools that have surrendered some of their power to students, as an example, have achieved great success. In our college system students have become part and parcel of making policy. A number of our schools over recent years have actually had students as their board chairs. There is an understanding that the rules of the school are made in conjunction with the students, and the power is transferred in that way. That is when we begin to find solutions to our problems - problems that have been identified in terms of the symptom of graffiti. It is those sorts of structural changes that we should be looking at.
One of the great shames of today's budget is that those structural changes do not appear. There is some attempt to move towards dealing with some of the symptoms of the problems.
Mr Berry: That is churlish.
MR MOORE: Perhaps that is the case; "churlish" is a good word. Thank you for being so polite. The issue raised is indeed a matter of public importance, but it is a matter of importance in terms of the problem rather than the symptom we recognise and deal with.
MRS CARNELL (4.30): Madam Speaker, I support the spirit of Ms Szuty's MPI. I believe in adopting a generous interpretation of the MPI, and I think we need to distinguish carefully some of the questions it raises. I certainly do not support a liberal interpretation of the MPI wording, because that would support the wanton destruction and defacing of property, whatever the socioeconomic cause might be. A better term for us to use is approved street art, rather than graffiti, because I think that is what we have all been talking about today.
Mr Moore: Except Mr Moore.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .