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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 12 Hansard (19 November) . . Page.. 4332 ..

MR CORNWELL (continuing):

Then we come to Ms Dundas, who spoke about the panel beaters under 18 years of age who would not be able to get access to spray cans and the artists under 18 years of age who would not able to get access to spray cans. These problems exist just as much in New South Wales. I would imagine, in any event, that panel beaters who are under 18 years of age would be apprentices and their companies would have the spray cans and such like available. Those things are probably bought in bulk. I would also suggest that they would not be in small cans. Operations that are involved in panel beating probably have much larger receptacles for this sort of thing.

Apart from the people who need the spray cans and therefore get them, you have to ask yourself why people have spray cans. The only other reason is that they are using them for home maintenance or something of that nature. Otherwise, I am afraid, they are probably being used for the wrong purpose. Ms Dundas also mentioned the aerosol industry and their attitude. I wonder whether she would have applied the same argument in relation to the plastics industry and plastic bags? I think not.

Mr Wood did not sound very convincing, but at least he did attempt to put things into some perspective. He was kind enough to refer to this legislation as inappropriate, which was probably an understatement compared with what the other critics had said, but never mind. He quoted how much graffiti was costing us. I have to say, Mr Wood, that for over $1 million you have not had much success in controlling it here. It is all very well to talk about conferencing, education and such like, which is one aspect of it, but you also need some legislation to control it and some penalties, if you like, to make people aware that they will be punished if they insist on carrying out this form of vandalism.

However, Mr Wood left me speechless by talking about and building up a voluntary code of conduct, so much so that I found it difficult to understand at first what he was referring to, after the Chief Minister had been telling me that a mandatory requirement simply would not work. If you are not going to have a law, how on earth can you rely on a voluntary code to have the same effect? I am at a loss to understand the argument. That is why I found some of Mr Wood's arguments rather unconvincing. If, as the Chief Minister says, a mandatory law will not work, how on earth could a voluntary law do so?

I do not believe that this provision is discriminatory for small business, Mr Wood. I think that most small businesses are quite capable of handling themselves. After all, a man owning a hotel does not have to stand at the bar and check everybody who is being served to make sure they are not under-age. A person selling cigarettes does not have to be at the cash register making sure that everybody who buys a packet of cigarettes is not under-age. Why, therefore, should somebody selling spray cans have to stand there and make sure that everybody who buys them is not under-age? I did like Mr Wood's concluding comments about vigorously defending the city. I do not see much evidence of that.

The suggestion that I was attacking all youth is equally wrong. I have made no attack on the vast majority of well-behaved, law-abiding youth in this respect. I was disappointed that Labor, the Greens and the Democrats really had no clear suggestions as to how this problem could properly be addressed, although, to be fair, Ms Tucker suggested that there might be some sort of discussion with the offenders. I do not know that the government has done anything about that.

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