Page 4376 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 8 December 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
My other reason for doing that is that when Mr Stevenson first raised this issue with me I really felt that it was more a matter of detail and really did not need to be included in this substantive motion as it stands. However, I note that Mr Stevenson in his opening comments made some very pertinent remarks about the question of who judges street art - who decides what is good street art and what is not good street art. It is a very important question and conundrum that the community needs to come to terms with. I noted as I was speaking to my motion, Madam Speaker, the level of debate and discussion within the chamber. I think that has something to do with the issue itself. Much discussion is generated among people when the question of street art and graffiti is raised.
I found Mr Connolly's remarks somewhat curious. He took issue with the point that I made about perhaps extra resources being spent, in the youth sector in particular, to take on the issue of street art in a fairly substantive way. I do not necessarily see that that is going to occur. A recognised Streetlink program operates from the youth affairs unit of the Chief Minister's Department already. Streetlink officers may very well be dealing at the present time with very alienated young people who may be involved in illegal activity with regard to graffiti or in legal street art, so I do not necessarily see that a great amount of extra resources would need to be spent to facilitate the motion that I am proposing.
Mr Connolly also questioned whether a lot of bureaucratic resources would need to be devoted to drawing the various people together. I have never seen the motion in those terms. In fact, in my opening remarks, I pointed out that it is very difficult, especially for young people who want to access public assets, to decide whom they go and talk to - whether it is the youth affairs unit in the Chief Minister's Department, whether it is somebody in Urban Services who can identify particular assets, or whether it is somebody in Community Services or whatever. I do not really see that there would be a lot of extra resources needed to draw that expertise together.
I noted that the Government are prepared to trial the decoration of additional street art facilities, and I welcome that initiative. I also welcome the initiative whereby people involved with community service orders are in the process of removing illegal graffiti around Canberra at the moment. The other point that I should make in response to Mr Connolly's remarks is that he appeared to pay little attention to the points that I made about supporting legal street art being cost-effective for the community and generating cost savings for the community by reducing the amount of illegal graffiti that occurs in the community. Finally on Mr Connolly's remarks, I welcome his view that the Legislative Assembly will implement the decision to better facilitate legal street art if the motion is successful this morning.
I have already commented on Mr Humphries's remarks, and I thank the Liberal Party for their support of the motion. It is interesting, in fact, that the Liberal Party have the imagination, have the courage, to think of a new idea and think of a way of better facilitating street art. It is disappointing that the ACT Government does not see it that way.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .