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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 08 Hansard (Tuesday, 3 August 2004) . . Page.. 3310 ..

Of course, the Greens equally have said a lot in this place about graffiti. We have talked about the need to ensure that we do not just create an environment in which street art is lumped together with tagging. There needs to be an understanding that you can work with young people involved in graffiti to make it a socially positive activity. It is not in the interests of society to criminalize them. We also have to understand that you cannot totally separate young people who tag from young people who do graffiti art, because these practices are part of the spectrum. The Warringah project in New South Wales has clearly shown that if you work with the taggers they can become the street artists. So you are skilling these young people to become street artists, and in the Greens’ view that is a much more positive and constructive response to the question of vandalism from graffiti in our community.

I am concerned that really special pieces of art, which graffiti art can be, could be painted over because an authorised person regarded it as graffiti. I do not know when this bill was tabled—and I have to confess that we have not done the work on it—but maybe it could have included a definition of graffiti. So I just express those concerns on behalf of the Greens.

The provisions regarding abandoned vehicles looks all right. However, I would like to make one point. Some time ago I made representations on behalf of a constituent whose son, who lives in public housing, had parked his car in a public housing garage or parking area, whatever it was. The car, which was probably one of the most important things in that young man’s life, was being repaired and the wheels had been removed. However, the young man did not have the time to repair the vehicle, get it roadworthy and register it. I cannot remember the detail, but basically there was a threat that the car would be regarded as an abandoned vehicle and removed. I intervened, the minister’s office was very reasonable about it and the young man did not lose his car.

Mr Wood: I am always reasonable.

MS TUCKER: Mr Wood said that he is always reasonable. That is a matter of opinion sometimes but very often, yes, that is probably true. In some areas I would say just never, but we won’t go into that now.

I want to put on the record that I do not know what the definition of a public place is. I would be worried if a public place included public housing properties. There needs to be an understanding of what is involved. Right to property under the Human Rights Act and all sorts of other things could come into it if vehicles were taken away in those circumstances.

MS DUNDAS (12.01): The Democrats will be supporting this bill, although we do have serious concerns about the rights of individuals who may wish to have graffiti or street art on their property. I support the increased powers to remove abandoned vehicles, which I think is an appropriate response to dealing with an identified problem. However, I think we have gone perhaps a little too far in respect of the powers to remove graffiti in that this could represent a significant invasion of property and have a significant impact on the art culture here in the ACT.

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