Page 4370 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 8 December 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I was interested in Ms Szuty's comment about the project in Brisbane, and I can understand. That does make sense. It could stand on its own as a worthwhile project. I noted the comments she made about the removal of graffiti, and they make sense to me. I have some reservations about aerosol art. I think we need to proceed with caution. There are some dangers in it. I do not envisage every public toilet, every underpass, every wall such as the walls along Parliament House being covered with aerosol art. I would not support that. Once you encourage this, it is difficult to impose limits on what may happen.
The motion has completely fallen down because it has lost touch with reality. What may have been a sensible idea quietly and cautiously worked into some existing structures could have got through this Assembly.
Mrs Carnell: That is what we have put forward.
MR WOOD: No, you have not really changed it at all.
Mrs Carnell: We have.
MR WOOD: You have not changed it at all. This is simply an impossible motion, and the Government's rejection of it is quite sensible.
MR STEVENSON (11.41): I have had a concern about the costing. It is an open-ended situation and, unless it is costed, we do not know what we are agreeing to. There is no doubt that the amendments moved by Mr Humphries would tend to reduce associated costs because there would not be a requirement for a coordinating unit. In general, when it comes to things being painted on public assets - I have spoken with a number of people about this - the concern is that political messages should not be painted. If someone wants to put up a political statement, they can pay for it. There is no right to do that on public assets, and I think the majority of people in Canberra would agree with that.
However, the beautification that can take place with well-done street art is undoubted - provided, as I said, that it is a non-political message and, obviously, that it is submitted first. Mr Wood mentioned that my suggestion is that proposed murals should be submitted. Any suggestion that they should not be submitted is worse than bizarre. The truth of the matter, of course, at the moment is that ACTION require that murals be submitted before they are approved. This is natural. No-one would approve of saying to somebody with a pot of paint and a brush, "Yes, it is yours. Away you go". That is nonsense.
One thing that I was encouraged by was Mr Connolly's statement, "I will accept the direction of this Assembly". That is a remarkable turnaround. With Christmas coming up, I think it is a nice Christmas present to the people of Canberra who elected nine members of this Assembly that at least Mr Connolly, as Minister, will accept the direction of the majority of members in this Assembly. That is a good thing.
Mr Lamont: Will you?
MR STEVENSON: I do. I have no choice.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .