Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 12 Hansard (19 November) . . Page.. 4306 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

The Attorney has a somewhat esoteric point and he went off on a bit of a tangent to the wording of a clause in Mr Cornwell's bill, but he certainly conceded that New South Wales has a very similar law for banning the sale of spray cans to under 18-year-olds. I understand that law has been in force since September. We probably have not been able to see how effective it has been to date, but it has been brought in, no doubt after a lot of thought by the New South Wales government. I think the New South Wales government has adopted a number of very sensible approaches to the law in the criminal law area, as has South Australia.

South Australia is hardly a state with a redneck reputation. Indeed, much of the case law that is followed by the courts here in the ACT emanates from the South Australian courts. South Australia has also brought in a very similar law. Mr Stanhope seems to think that this will not stop any graffiti, that it will not matter one jot, just like smoking. I suspect he is very wrong there and I also suspect that we should at least give it a go. If it is good enough for New South Wales and South Australia, it should be good enough for us too. Let us see how it works.

The various laws stopping juveniles getting cigarettes have probably slowed down a large number of kids. I am certain that banning the sale of spray cans to under 18-year-olds will slow down a number of kids, too, who would otherwise cause some significant problems in our community.

Probably because of the very nature of graffiti, the majority of people who tend to do it are younger people, so banning the sale of spray cans to under 18-year-olds is a very good start and one step towards ridding us of this problem, or at least reducing the problem. One of the constant stream of complaints that I get in my office from constituents is about ugly, often obscene, nasty graffiti that really annoys people. It looks tacky and often, if it is on a disused building, it invites other bad forms of vandalism, such as breaking windows and so on. It is something that all governments have tried to do something about to some extent.

Other points that Mr Stanhope raised included that Mr Cornwell has talked about a new definition, a new matter of appropriate diligence. I had a look at that section. Mr Stanhope destroyed his own argument when he started referring to what New South Wales and South Australia has done. Indeed, I put it to him, if he is serious all he has to do is amend Mr Cornwell's bill and bring in either the South Australian or the New South Wales defence to a strict liability offence.

Of course, he is not going to do that because, at the end of the day, he does not want to support a bill such as this for the reasons he gave later on in his speech. I think what he has to say in relation to appropriate diligence is a nonsense. When he read it out, it seemed to me to be not all that different from what there is in New South Wales and South Australia. Indeed, I am advised by my colleague Mr Cornwell that, when drafting the bill, as all of us do, he went to the office of the parliamentary counsel, whose staff made this bill as close as possible to the New South Wales bill.

I do not see a particular problem with that term. If there is a problem, he can simply uplift the New South Wales equivalent, if that makes people happy. However, I suspect it will not, because most members of this house do not want to see this legislation in force.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .