Page 4373 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 8 December 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
point and, if the proposal comes forward as I have envisaged it, I would anticipate considerable difficulty with the way in which that would operate. I would hope that there would not be any question of using this for some sort of nefarious purpose, but rather that we would see it used for the intention for which it is actually put forward, which is to provide young people with a real avenue for expressing themselves in a way which is constructive rather than destructive.
MR LAMONT (11.53): The sentiment in relation to the substance of this proposal, I think, has general support. I have a number of concerns. One is that we should take two hours of private members business time to discuss a matter which, in my view, does not rate as significant as some of the matters that some of those opposite have been extremely critical of the Government for pursuing. I do believe, however, that it is an important matter for two reasons. First, it would provide an opportunity for legitimate expression within our community and, secondly, it would provide for some degree of control that would reflect what the community thought was acceptable in that regard.
However, I do not support the thrust of Ms Szuty's motion. I believe that it is inappropriate for a government agency, the Government or this Assembly to attempt to coordinate or control this activity. I would be far happier for one or even a number of the community groups to be involved in the coordination and facilitation of the legitimate expression of community artists, street artists and so forth. In places such as London street art - in fact, it is footpath art - has become a fairly significant tourist attraction and a legitimate expression of community artists' feelings on political issues as well as social issues. The whole movement of graffiti art, as it has been generically called here, has its genesis in the political process or the feeling of disappointment by particular groups within our society about their inability to express political points of view and to make a political statement.
Therefore, I do not accept any of the sentiment in the amendment proposed by Mr Stevenson. I think it is basically a nonsense. One could say quite legitimately that depicting a particular environmental or landscape feature was a political statement, depending upon how it is constructed. At times the conservation movement, quite unashamedly, acts in a political manner.
Mr Berry: Could you write "Dennis Stevenson sux"? Would that be political or personal?
MR LAMONT: It would depend who wrote it, I would suggest. Then again, it would depend who saw it. There is a famous piece of graffiti on a wall at, I think, the Lyneham shops that refers to a well-known journalist in Canberra. Whether that is regarded as a political statement, whether that is just regarded as offensive graffiti or whether it is regarded as a statement of fact is in the eye of the beholder. That is where I have some difficulty with both the control process that Ms Szuty is proposing and the amendment moved by Mr Stevenson.
You can imagine if Mr Stevenson had control of a unit that was responsible for viewing submissions for street art. I shudder to think of what would be deemed acceptable but, more importantly, what would be deemed unacceptable.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .