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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 08 Hansard (Tuesday, 3 August 2004) . . Page.. 3312 ..

tagging—perhaps we should not use the word “graffiti” at all—and recognise that tagging is quite undesirable.

Mr Cornwell said that we are not accepting responsibility for removing tagging from commercial or private premises. We may do so but we would be very cautious because we do not want to accept the responsibility. We could not remove the tag that appeared on the National Bank just across the road from the Assembly. I would not want the bank to say, “It is your responsibility to remove that tag and to see that the paint is exactly the same colour and, if necessary, paint the whole wall or the whole darned bank.” We would not accept that. I do not mind saying that we anticipate that we will move a tag on someone’s back fence that they have objected to. So we have to be careful, we have to be judicious.

Mr Cornwell mentioned the blight along Hindmarsh Drive. Some of that is what might be loosely defined as street art, yet it is an eyesore. I would see this legislation as empowering our people—and we spend $1 million a year—to remove that. Of course, it could emerge again but you keep removing it. The tagging game is about painting a recognisable sign. However, we have been told that constant removal is the most significant way of getting rid of tagging.

Ms Dundas wants 24 hours notice to be given for the removal of street art. The government will not accept her amendment but I can give Ms Dundas an assurance that she may like to accept. All officers in bureaucracies work under the direction of that bureaucracy. A more sensible approach that does not negate the whole idea of this legislation is that tagging removers will be given the direction that if there appears to be a significant street artwork that might have been produced at the request of the owner, that will be removed only after notice has been given. We will undertake to do that.

But bear in mind that the main attack here is on tagging, not on street art. There may be circumstances where street art needs to be removed. If it is on a private property, Ms Dundas, we will give you an assurance that notice will be given and people will be asked, “Do you want to keep it or do you want us to take it off?” Bear in mind again that this is a bit of added flexibility. This is not a total program to remove tagging from every private premises in the city. It cannot be that. I think that is the best way to approach the amendment, Ms Dundas.

I thank Mrs Cross for her written words on this subject. The whole program this morning, strangely for this Assembly, has been moving faster than expected, not slower than expected. So I thank her for her support. Mrs Cross wants to see the graffiti removed faster, thereby making Canberra a cleaner and more beautiful place. I think those are the points that you wanted me to highlight.

Mrs Cross: Great, Bill.

MR WOOD: All right. I thank members for their support and I express reservations about Ms Dundas’s amendment.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill agreed to in principle.

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